The voluntary admission of guilt by the bus driver in the Magistrate's Court and the rough sketch as evidence of negligence influenced the court's decision.

These three appeals in three injury cases have been preferred by the National Insurance Company.

2. The accident took place on 21.12.1997 on the Tirunelveli – Kovilpatti main road very near Inammaniyachi. The occupants of the van No.TN-59-A-863, which has been insured with the appellant, have sustained grievous injuries. They are Bala @ Balamani, Suganya Gnana Soundari and Kavitha. They have preferred claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.126, 128 and 129 of 2000 respectively, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Judge), Dindigul.

3. They alleged that the driver of the bus, which has been insured with the appellant, by his rash and negligent driving, caused the road accident.

4. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence, fastened negligence on the bus driver and directed the bus owner and his insurer, to pay them compensation, as detailed below:-

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contend that the Bus driver / R.W1 and R.W.2, the Company official have been examined. Ex.R1, the Rough Sketch, goes to show that the van driver is also responsible for the accident. He is equally guilty of negligence. In such circumstances, the Tribunal mainly relying on the criminal Court's judgment wrongly placed the entire negligence on the bus driver. Further, in each case, without properly appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal had granted excessive compensation.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that R.W.1 admitted his guilt in the Magistrate's Court. Now he cannot wriggle out. What was granted by the Tribunal itself less. He further contended that in the very same road accident in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2009 relating to a fatal case, the negligence was fastened on the bus driver. The Insurance Company honoured the Award, paid the amount and did not challenge before next forum. In such circumstances, they are estopped from arguing otherwise. It cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.

7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned common award of the Tribunal.

8. The main crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on Ex.R1, Rough Sketch. He would contend that as portraited in Ex.R1, Rough Sketch, the van came from the South to North, while the bus proceeded from the North to South. It would indicate that both the drivers were rash and negligence in driving the vehicles. Thus, in such circumstances, blaming the bus driver alone is not correct.

9. R.W. 1, voluntarily admitted before the Magistrate's Court that he caused the accident by his negligence. Accordingly, he was convicted. He paid the fine. Ex.P13 is the criminal Court Judgment. It has become a matter of record.

10. Now, it is stated that the bus driver/R.W.1, in the Tribunal spoken otherwise. After having made his voluntary admission falling under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, he cannot take a different stand, unless he gives a specific reason such as coercion and undue influence, extraction. But that is not his version. In such circumstances, Ex.P13, judgment operate as estoppel as against him in taking his present stand.

11. Ex.R1, Rough Sketch. Its author is a police officer. Ex.R1 will give topography of the accident area. It is not conclusive or sole material to decide the manner of accident. Further, the author has been examined and subjected to cross examine. In view of the forgoings, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal as to the negligence issue.

12. M.C.O.P. No. 126 of 2000 relates to Bala @ Balamani, which relates to C.M.A. (MD) No. 910 of 2005. It ha