Kailasam, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a claim petition filed by the widow and minor children of one Veeraswami who died in a traffic accident on 9th May 1971. The first respondent in the O.P. is the driver of the vehicle M.D.S. 7979. The second respondent is the insurance company, viz., Madras Motor and General Insurance Co., Ltd. The third respondent, Safe Service Ltd., is the registered owner of the vehicle. It had by an agreement leased the car to the fourth respondent in February, 3970. When the car was under the control of the fourth respondent on the date of the occurrence 9th May, 1971, he had hired she car to the fifth respondent who engaged his own driver when the fatal accident occurred.
(2.) THE first respondent -driver of the vehicle was given up and the fifth respondent remained ex parte. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the accident resulting in the death of Veeraswami was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. It also found that the third respondent, the registered owner had no control over the movement of the car as it had leased it in favour of the fourth respondent for a a period of two years, and therefore, it cannot be held liable for the accident. The Tribunal also held that the second respondent insurance company with which the car was insured by the owner, the third respondent, was also not liable. But, the Tribunal held that the fourth, and the fifth respondents, namely, the person who had taken the car on lease and the person to whom the car was hired on the date of the accident, were jointly and severally responsible for the claim of compensation. Though the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs. 30,000 the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 21,000 and held that respondents 4 and 5 were liable for the same and dismissed the petition as against respondents 2 and 3.
(3.) THE claimants have preferred C.M.A. No. 103 of 1974 praying that the registered owner and the insurance company the third and the second respondents respectively should be equally made liable for the damages. The claimants also contended that the amount awarded was too low and prayed for the enhancement of the amount to Rs. 30,000.;