The judgment of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Claims Tribunal, and the relevance of additional documents such as sketches and photographs in determining negligence.

1. An accident has occurred on 14.02.2007, about 12.02 Hours, between a Bolero Jeep, bearing Registration No. TN 30 V 5667, belonging to one Mr. M. Natarajan, insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein and a Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No. TN 27 N 1169. Out of seven persons, who have travelled in the Bolero Jeep, six persons died on the spot and one was injured. A case in Cr.No.50 of 2007, has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, under Sections 279, 338 and 334 IPC. Legal representatives of four deceased persons filed M.C.O.P.Nos.1244 to 1247 of 2007, on the file of claiming compensation.

2. Opposing the Claim Petitions, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that there was no rash and negligent driving by its driver, According to him, the accident occurred, only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of Bolero Jeep, which came in the opposite direction and when he attempted to overtake another vehicle, dashed against the bus. Without prejudice to the above, the Transport Corporation disputed the compensation has claimed under various heads.

3. Owner of the Bolero Jeep, Mr. M. Natarajan, in his counter affidavit, has blamed the driver of the transport corporation bus. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed.

4. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Salem, also has opposed all the claim petitions, contending inter alia that it is the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, against whom, a criminal case has been registered, was negligent in causing the accident. The age, avocation, income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation, were disputed.

5. Thus, the owner of the Bolera Jeep and its Insurer, viz., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Salem, have submitted that it was the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, who was responsible for the accident. Whereas, the Transport Corporation has attributed negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolera Jeep.

6. As the claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1244 to 1247 of 2007, arose out of the same accident, a joint trial has been held. Before the Claims Tribunal, Pws.1 to 5 have been examined and they have marked 30 documents, as Exs.P1 to P30. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the Branch Manager of the State Transport Corporation has been examined as RW.1 and he has marked four documents, as Exs.R1 to R4. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that both the drivers were equally negligent in causing the accident and accordingly, fixed the same, in the ratio 50:50. After determining the quantum of compensation, in each of the claim petitions, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the victims, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

7. At the outset, Mr. S. Vadivel, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the present appeals are restricted to only the finding, fixing negligence, on the driver of the Bolero Jeep, bearing Registration No. TN 30 V 5667, belonging to one Mr. M. Natarajan, insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Referring to Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P5 – Final report to the Police, against the driver of the Sate Transport Corporation bus, he further submitted that in the light of the above documents, the Claims Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligence on the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that when Pws.1 to 4, in their respective claim petitions, have unanimously pleaded that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No. TN 27 N 1169, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have over looked the same and arrived at a decision, contrary to their pleadings and evidence. It is also his contention that creden