The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor accident claim and the reliance on evidence to establish negligence.

Since all the four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the same accident and disposed on the same day by the same Tribunal, all are jointly taken up for consideration. These Appeals are filed by the appellant [Insurance Company], challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2010 in M.C.O.P.Nos.162, 179, 121 and 274 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Subordinate Court], Kancheepuram.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners in all the four claim petitions are that, on 30.11.2007 at about 5.00 p.m., when the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2008 was travelled in a Government bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-2034 owned by the third respondent, the petitioners in M.C.O.P.Nos.179, 121 and 274 of 2008 were all travelled in a private bus bearing registration No.AP-03-W-7575 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Both the buses were proceeding against each other in north-south road near Kooram Gate in Kancheepuram-Arakonam High Road. Prior to the occurrence, the driver of the first respondent's bus, drove the bus with uncontrollable speed in a rash and negligent manner and at the same time, the driver of the third respondent Government bus was driven by its driver in opposite direction with normal speed after observing the traffic rules and regulations.

4. Before the occurrence, the driver of the private bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to overtake the bullock cart, which was proceeded in front of the bus in a same direction, after seeing the uncontrollable speed of the private bus, the driver of the third respondent, who came from opposite direction parked the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road near to the railway gate. But without seeing the Government bus, the driver of the private bus driven his vehicle on the western side of the north-south main road, dashed against the Government bus. In the accident, both the bus drivers and 7 other passengers were died. According to the petitioners, the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver, who drove the private bus.

5. For the said accident, a case has been registered in Crime No.1197 of 2007 under Sections 297, 337, 338 and 304[A] of IPC by the Kancheepuram Police. After completing the investigation, since both the drivers are died, charge sheet has been filed as “charge abates”. It is the contention of the respective petitioners that due to the injury suffered, they are not able to attend the regular work and hence, sought for compensation from the respondents.

6. On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioners, by filing counter, the second respondent [Insurance Company] denied the accident itself and stated that only due to rash and negligent act of the driver, who drove the Government bus the accident occurred.

7. Per contra, the third respondent, by filing counter stated that the driver of the private bus bearing registration No.AP-03-W-7575 alone is responsible for the accident now stated by the claimants in the claim petitions. However, both the respondents sought for the dismissal of the Claim Petitions.

8. Before the Claims Tribunal in each claim petition, after examining two witnesses on the side of the petitioners as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and after marking 5 exhibits as P.1 to P.5, two witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents as R.W.1 and R.W.2. Further, 3 documents were exhibited on the side of the respondents as R.1 to R.3. The first respondent remained exparte.

9. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the available records came to the conclusion that the driver of the first respondent [private bus] driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and causing this accident. Further, came to the concl