Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal was filed against the award in O.P.(M.V.) 395/99 of M.A.C.T. Muvattupuzha. Original petition was dismissed with cost of the contesting respondents. Appellants herein were the petitioners before the Tribunal. First petitioner is the widow of the deceased and other petitioners are the son and daughters of the deceased. The deceased was a fisherman and a coolie who was the sole breadwinner of his family consisting of his wife and children.

2. The deceased was riding a bicycle from south to north along the Piravom-Muvattupuzha public road, while so, a bus owned by the K.S.R.T.C. driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner from south to north hit the deceased from behind. Deceased fell down on the road and the back tyre of the bus run over his body and he died on the spot. Deceased was aged 58 years at the time of the accident. He was earning a monthly income of Rs. 2000/-. Claimants were depending on the income from the deceased for their livelihood and on the death of the deceased the family was in complete penury.

3. Petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation under various heads. Petitioners also engaged a counsel for conducting the case. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a joint written statement denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1. Who is responsible for the accident ?

2. What, if any, is the quantum of compensation the petitioner is entitled to get ?

3. Who is liable to pay compensation ?

4. Relief and costs ?

The case was posted for evidence on 3-2-2000 but the petitioners were not ready and the case was adjourned to 9-2-2000. On 9-2-2000 the petitioners were not present and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Case was adjourned to 11-2-2000. Petitioners were absent on 11-2-2000, so also the counsel. Respondents counsel was heard and Tribunal passed the following order :

"Issue No. 1 : No evidence was adduced on the side of the petitioners. Documents also not produced. Therefore in the absence of the evidence this issue has to be decided against the petitioners.

Issue Nos. 2 and 3 : The factum of occurrence of accident was not proved by any evidence. Documents were also not produced. There is nothing in evidence. No datas are available to fix up the quantum of compensation. Therefore these issues were also answered against the petitioners.

Issue No. 4 : Petitioners are not entitled to succeed.

In the result, the petition is dismissed with the cost of contesting respondents."

Aggrieved by the manner in which the claim petition was disposed of by the Tribunal they have preferred this appeal stating as follows :

"The absence of the Appellants/Petitioners and their counsel on 9-2-2000 and 11-2-2000 were due to the mistake happened in the taking of the posting dates of the case. The Appellants/Petitioners were vigilantly conducting the case from 1996 onwards. There was no willful laches or negligence from the part of the Appellants/Petitioners for their absence on 9-2-2000 and 11-2-2000 but due to the reasons stated above. The learned Tribunal ought to have given one more opportunity to the Appellants/Petitioners to adduce evidence from their side. Though the respondents did not dispute the accident and resultant death of the deceased, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as such with cost to the respondents, saying that "no evidence was adduced on the side of the petitioners, documents also not produced".

It was also stated in the appeal memorandum that the Tribunal did not even allow the claim under Sec. 140of the Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioners/appellants therefore sought for a remand of the case to M.A.C.T. for de novo consideration giving them an opportunity to adduce evidence. We heard counsel for the appellants Sri. P.V. Santosh as well as counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. Sri. James Koshy.

4. We may at the