Mere violation of Actor Rules does not result in contributory negligence.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli is the appellant in the above appeals. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 14-8-1992, one Srirengam filed M.C.O.P.No. 15 of 1993 praying for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. During the pendency of the said petition, the said Srirengam died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4. In respect of death of one Duraipandi in the very same accident, his wife, children and mother filed M.C.O.P.No. 382 of 93 praying for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Both the claim petitions were tried together. 2nd claimant in the former petition (M.C.O.P.No. 15/1993) was examined as P.W.1 and first petitioner in the latter petition (M.C.O.P.No. 382/1993) as P.W.2, besides marking of Exs. P-1 to P-8 in support of their claim. On the side of the Transport Corporation, their driver was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Corporation bus, passed an award for Rs.16,500/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition in respect of the former M.C.O.P.; and for Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition in the latter M.C.O.P., and directed the Transport Corporation to pay the same. Questioning the said awards, the Transport Corporation has preferred the above appeals.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents/claimants.

3. Mrs. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation, would contend that in the absence of specific finding regarding negligence that the driver of the Corporation bus alone was responsible for the accident, the ultimate direction to the Transport Corporation for payment of compensation cannot be sustained. She also contended that since three persons were riding on the motor cycle at the time of the accident which is contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition or, in any event, ought to have reduced the compensation towards contributory negligence. She further contended that the award amount is on the higher side. On the other hand, Mr. J. Pothiraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, by pointing out the entire materials placed before the Tribunal, would contend that the Tribunal is fully justified in rendering the finding against the bus driver and passing an award which is just and reasonable. He also contends that in the absence of any acceptable evidence that since three persons travelled in the motor cycle which alone has resulted in the accident, there cannot be any contributory negligence on the part of those persons travelled in the motor cycle and consequently there will be no reduction in the compensation.

4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

5. Though the injured Srirengam (pillion rider) was not available for evidence at the time of trial, the said Srirengam, after the occurrence had given a statement to the police with regard to the accident wherein he has specifically mentioned that the Kattabomman bus was driven in a rash and negligently manner and it dashed against the motor cycle, resulted in the accident,as seen from Ex.P-1, certified copy of First Information Report. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, even in his claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 15/93, he had mentioned all the above statements as found in Ex. P-1. It is also seen that based on the complaint-Ex.P-1, after investigation, a criminal case has been filed against the driver of the Kattabomman bus for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. and that subsequently a charge sheet was also filed against him. Ex. P-2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Motor Vehicle Inspector's report is Ex.P-3 which shows that the accident was not due to any