JUDGMENT
Swamikkannu, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the second respondent M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., against the Award dated 24-12-1980 in claim Petition No. 61 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal. (Second Additional District Judge) Tirunelvell, finding that the accident was due to rashness of the driver and the negligence of the conductor and also finding that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-has to be awarded to the petitioners before the Tribunal and that each petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and that the petitioners are entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. Advocate’s fee was fixed at Rs. 500.
2. The petition was filed by Mariasamy Nadar and Gnanamaniammal who are the first and second respondents in this appeal under Section 110A (I) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under praying to grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the loss of life of one Jeyaraj, aged about 24 years
3. The case that was put forward before the Tribunal was a» follows : On 27-3-1979 at 7-30 p.m. Jeyaraj was travelling in the bus T.N.T. 0275. The bus was proceeding from Tenkasi to Parankuntepuram. Jeyaraj was inside in the rear portion near the entrance of the bus. At 7-30 p.m. just west of Sithar River bridge the driver drove the bus rashly and negligently at terrific speed without sounding horn and dashed against the concrete signboard placed on the extreme eastern end of the road, Jeyaraj and two others were thrown out from the bus. Jeyaraj was taken to the hospital at Tenkasi where he died. Madakkanu Nadar also died; the driver and the conductor of the bus were prosecuted. Jeyaraj was aged 24 years at the time of the accident, and he was earning a sum of Rs. 300 per month. He was giving Rs. 200 per month to the petitioners respondents 1 and 2 herein. He would have lived for another 10 years, and the petitioners respondents 1 and 2 herein will live for another 25 years The monetary loss is valued at Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioners respondents restricted their claim to Rs. 30,000/-.
4. The first respondent before the Tribunal and the third respondent before this Court is the owner of the bus and the second respondent before the Tribunal and the appellant herein is the Insurer.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the owner of the bus, the following contentions were raised. The driver drove the bus slowly and steadily on the left side of the road sounding horn. The bus was fully crowded, Even though the conductor requested the passengers in excess either to get into the bus or got down from the bus, nobody headed to his request. The deceased was hanging on the window bar of the bus suddenly a woman tried to cross the road. In order to avoid the accident, the driver swerved the bus to right and the bus dashed against the cement signboard pillar. The death is due to carelessness of the deceased and not due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. The amount claimed is excessive.
6. The appellant herein in his counter had contended that the claim is excessive.
7. The petitioners-respondents 1 and 2 herein had examined two witnesses on their behalf. PW 1 Mariasarni Nadar is the first petitioner first respondent herein. He has deposed that his son was 24 years old at the time of the accident, that he was doing agricultural work, that he was earning a sum of Rs. 300 to Rs. 3S0 per month and that he used to give Rs. 250 per month to the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 herein. PW 2 Ramiah Chettiar, who was examined on the side of the petitioner-respondents 1 and 2 herein has stated that he travelled in the bus and that the bus came at a high speed and dashed against a cement board, that two or three persons fell down, that the bus did not stop inspite of shouts by the passengers, that the bus was stopped at Pavoorchathiram and that Jeyaraj and another man died.
8. The first respondent, who is the third respondent before this Court, examined RW 1 Duraisami Naidu, who is the Manager. He had deposed that the driver and conductor are not in service under the third respondent. He had produced Ex. B 3 certified copy of the judgment.
9. The following points were framed by the Tribunal for consideration.
(1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent, driving of the bus by the 1st respondent’s driver.
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, at what amount?
Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-6 were filed on behalf pf the petitioners respondents 1 and 2 herein. Ex. B-l, dated 30-4-1980 copy of the Insurance Policy No. 12601/24/1/1822 of the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited issued to the 1st respondent Ex. B 2, dated 30-4-1980 certified copy of judgment in C.C. No. 280 of 1979 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottah were marked on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal. On the basis of the above evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion on point No. 1 that the accident was due to the rashness of the driver and the negligence of the conductor and on point No. 2, the Tribunal bad fixed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, and held that each petitioner is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal, the United India Fire and General Insurance Co., had preferred this appeal.
10. Mr. A Devanathan, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal while fixing the quantum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, ought to have apportioned the same at Rs. 5,000/- each between the bus owner and the appellant herein as Rs. 5,000/- is the maximum liability and the third respondent herein, who is the owner of the bus. In this regard he pointed out the provisions under Section 95(2) (b) (ii) and Sub-section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and also relied on the decision reported in Sundaram Finance Ltd., Madras v. D.G. Nanjappa and Ors. 1980 ACJ 377 (Kardataka).
11. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- has to be apportioned at Rs. 5,000/- each between the bus owner and the, appellant as Rs. 5,000/- is the maximum liability of the appellant Insurance Company.
12. So far as the point relating to the liability for the accident is concerned, it is common ground that it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and by the driver of the bus was at fault. The Tribunal has comprehensively dealt with this question and has come to the correct conclusion. So the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is confirmed.
13. Now coming to the point that has been stressed on behalf of the Appellant herein by Mr. A Devanathan, I think it is useful to refer to the provisions under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) and Sub-section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1) a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident upto the following limits, namely:
(a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (i) xx xx (ii) In respect of passengers (1) A limit of fifty thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry not more than thirty passengers; (2) A limit of seventy-five thousand rupees in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than thirty, but not more than sixty passengers; (3) xx xx xx (4) Subject to the limits aforesaid, ten thousand rupees for each individual passenger where the vehicle is a motor car, and five thousand rupees for each individual passenger in any other case. 14. The head note in the decision reported in Sundaram Finance limited, Madras v. D.G. Nanjappa and Ors. 1980 ACJ 377 Karnataka, reads as follows:
Motor Insurance Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 95(2) Comprehensive Policy maximum liability in case of bus passengers Held the liability of insurance company in case of each passenger is Rs. 5,000/- along with cost and interest.
15. With respect to the quantum of compensation is concerned, I think that the Tribunal had approached this aspect with proper perspective, following the ratio of various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the Bench of this High Court and had correctly held that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid by way of compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein.
16. The question now is whether the appellant herein, is liable to pay the entire sum of Rs. 10,000/- or only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Following the ratio decidendi and the above said provision of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- fixed by it in between the third respondent herein and the appellant herein at Rs. 5,000/- each, as the maximum liability of the appellant Insurance Company is only Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore this Court finds that the appellant herein is liable only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-and the third respondent, owner of the bus is liable for the balance of Rs. 5,000/-. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above effect. The appeal is allowed fixing the liability of the appellant herein only as Rs. 5,000/-. There is however no order as to costs.