- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award and decree passed in MCOP No.4824 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, dated 16.12.2004.
(2.) THE respondents/claimants have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their son P.Dakshinamurthy. THE case of the respondents/claimants is that on 10.9.1999 at about 9.00 A.M., when the deceased was travelling in the passenger stage carriage bus of the appellant/respondent in O.P., bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-1752, proceeding from Kundrathur to Madhanandhapuram, Chennai and while the stopping of the deceased came, the bus was stopped and he was getting down through the front footboard of the bus and at that time, the Conductor of the bus without caring that whether all the passengers got down or not, gave whistle to move the bus and the Driver in turn, started to move the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering to the human safety and in that process, the deceased who was getting down from the bus, lost the grip and was thrown out of the vehicle and the back wheel of the bus ran over the deceased as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over the body and died on the spot and the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant/respondent transport corporation and the age of the deceased is 23 years and he was working as tailor and casual worker and earned Rs.2,000/- per month and the claimants are parents of the deceased and hence they claimed a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. On the side of the appellant/respondent in O.P., it was contended before the Tribunal that the deceased, a footboard passenger, travelled in the bus in over hanging manner without minding to the advice of the crew and when the bus was nearing the junction of Kundrathur Road and Jayalakshmi Nagar, a non-stopping place, the deceased lost his grip and fell down on the road and sustained injuries and hence the deceased was only responsible for the accident and further, contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents/claimants, they have examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and on the side of the appellant/respondent, it has examined one witness as R.W.1 and not marked any document.
(3.) THE Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence relied on either side and came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent's bus driver and therefore, the appellant/respondent is liable to pay compensation. The appellant has not challenged the above said finding, but at the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that they only challenge the quantum of compensation awarded. Further, the evidence of P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the accident, and also Ex.P4, copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.P5, rough sketch, reveal that the accident has occurred as stated in the claim petition. The evidence of R.W.1 is not to be accepted since he has falsely deposed to escape from the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly discussed the above said aspect and finally held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent's bus driver.;