Liability for compensation is determined based on the fault of the vehicles involved in the accident, and the awarded compensation should be just and based on the nature of injuries and expenses incurred by the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 made in MCOP.No.197 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) at Tiruvannamalai)

(This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing)

1. This Appeal has been filed by the insurer of the car bearing registration No.TN02-D-2594 which is owned by the fourth respondent. Two vehicles namely the aforementioned car as well as a bus bearing registration No.KA05-A-117 insured with the third respondent and owned by the second respondent were involved in an accident which took place on 21.07.2004 resulting in the first respondent who was tavelling in the car sustaining injuries.

2. The first respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai) in MCOP.No.197 of 2006 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the impugned award held that both the vehicles namely the car and the bus were equally responsible for the cause of the accident and fixed the contributory negligence on the insurer of both the vehicles at 50:50. The Tribunal under the impugned award also assessed the compensation payable to the first respondent at Rs. 1,78,715/- together with interest and cost. The details of the compensation awarded to the first respondent are as follows:

3. Aggrieved by the award dated 23.11.2009, this appeal has been filed by the insurer of the car.

4. Appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that they are not liable to compensate the first respondent/claimant, since the car which was insured with them was not responsible for the cause of the accident and that FIR was registered only against the bus which is insured with the third respondent. They have also challenged the award by questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Heard Mr.S.Arun kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the third respondent. Despite service of notice on the first respondent, there is no representation on the side of the first respondent. Second and fourth respondents remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.

6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant filed nine documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and two witnesses were examined namely the claimant himself as PW1 as well as the doctor who examined him as PW2. On the side of the third respondent, two documents were filed which were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and only one witness was examined as RW1. On the side of the Appellant insurance Company, no document was filed but one witness was examined as RW2.

7. As seen from the impugned award, in respect of two other claims already disposed of by the Tribunal under two different awards involving the same accident, the Appellant insurance company as well as the third respondent insurance company were held to be equally responsible for the cause of the accident. Being an head on collision between a bus and a car, as seen from the evidence available on record which has not been disputed, the Tribunal has rightly held that both the vehicles were at fault and the insurance companies of the respective vehicles were equally responsible to pay the assessed compensation amount to the claimant. Further as indicated earlier, two other awards were passed involving the same accident where