THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 3585 and 3636 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. It is stated that a batch of appeals arising out of the same incident were previously disposed of by this Court in MACMA Nos.1032, 1033, 1166, 1169 and 1281 of 2007, dated 08.07.2010, wherein all the said appeals filed by the appellant-insurer were dismissed, confirming the respective awards passed by the Tribunal. In the above appeals and also in the present appeals, the main contention raised by the appellant-insurer is that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto. In the order dated 08.07.2010 in the above batch of appeals, this Court held that: “In fact, there was no evidence to come to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto. In the absence of any evidence that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto, it cannot be assumed and presumed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto. In fact, no evidence has been adduced to show that had the Auto driver permitted less number of passengers, he would have avoided the accident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly held that the owner as well as the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.” The above finding holds good in the present appeals as well. Thus, adopting the reasoning mentioned in the above said order dated 08.07.2010 in the above batch of appeals which covers the present appeals as well, it is held that the impugned awards in the present appeals do not call for any interference. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed, in terms of the order dated 08.07.2010 in the batch of appeals mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 15th November, 2011 KSM