S. Jagadeesan, J. - (1.) Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai has filed these appeals against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dt. 29.11.95 in M.C.O.P. No. 220 to 229 of 1991 and 272 of 91. The claimants in all the O.Ps have claimed compensation for the accident that occurred on 2.5.91 at about 4.45 p.m. in Virudhunagar Sivakasi Highways. The claimants were the passengers in the bus TML 6943 owned by the appellant herein. The said bus dashed against the lorry belonging to the first respondent in the claim petitions, one Mohamed Iqbal and in the impact the claimants got injured. They claimed compensation. The Tribunal disposed of all the O.Ps in a common judgment. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal found that both the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the bus were rash and negligent and as such both of them have to share the liability equally. The appellant herein has filed these appeals challenging the said finding. No other issues or points were argued before me. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the lorry had been charge sheeted for the offences under Ss. 279, 337 and 304 -A I.P.C. The driver of the lorry has admitted his guilt and on the basis of his admission, he was found guilty by the criminal Court, The driver of the bus was not prosecuted. Since the driver of the lorry has admitted his guilt and found guilty, it has to be held that the driver of the lorry alone has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner and if it is so, there cannot be any apportionment of compensation between the appellant and the owner of the lorry.
(2.) Though the owner of the lorry as well as the Insurance company with which the lorry has been insured have been served with the summon in these appeals. They have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence the appeal was heard.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment reported in 1974 A.C.J. Page 215 wherein it has been held as follows: - "More significant is the fact that, when R.W.1 was prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 337 I.P.C. he has voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him. After having admitted before the criminal Court that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the car, there is hardly any force in the present contention of R.W.1 that he did not drive the car rashly or negligently and that he was not to be blamed for the accident. It is no doubt seen that R.W.1 has attempted to reconcile the conflicting positions by projecting a story that his plea of guilt before the Criminal Court was not one of truth, but was one of the convenience, viz., to avoid making frequent visits to the Court to defend the case. This explanation is hardly convincing and, at any rate, cannot be allowed to be successfully projected by R.W.1. An admission against the interest made by R. W. 1 either before the Tribunal or elsewhere has got to be taken into account in rendering a decision on the relative stands taken by the parties in the controversy. In the fact of his own admission in connected proceedings arising out of the same incident it is futile for R.W.1 to contend that the accident was not due to his negligence. This important aspect of the case has been totally lost sight of by the Tribunal." On the principle laid down in the above judgment, it is not open to the lorry driver to go back from his admission. When once the lorry driver alone had been prosecuted and found guilty,' it has to be concluded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and not otherwise. Hence I find that the lorry driver alone is responsible for the accident. In view of the abovesaid finding, the award of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the apportionment of the compensation between the appellant herein and the Insurance company with which the lorry has been insured is liable to be set aside. The Insurance company who is the second respondent before the Tribunal is solely responsible to pay the entire compensation to all the claimants. The appeals are partly allowed.;