JUDGMENT :

G. Rajasuria, J.—C.M.A. Nos. 1093 to 1095 of 2005 have been filed as against the common judgment and decrees dated 16.9.2004 passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 403, 404 and 1192 of 2000, by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2. All these appeals have been taken for discussion and disposal as they emerged relating to one and the same accident.

3. The challenge in these appeals are relating to the quantum of negligence fixed exclusively on the driver of the van, leaving the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, even though it is an accident involving head-on collision between two vehicles in a broad road and that too, in broad daylight.

4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the driver of the van as exclusively responsible for the accident?

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company being the insurer of offending van, would develop his argument by drawing the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW 1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles concerned, namely, the van and bus.

7. According to