Both conductor and deceased held guilty and responsible.

P. Sathasivam, J.

The erstwhile Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore dated 28.11.1995 made in M.C.O.P.No.761/1993, has filed the above appeal.

2. In respect of death of one Gunavathi in a Motor vehicle accident that took place on 25.8.1993, her husband, sons and daughter preferred a claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. In support of the claim, the sixth claimant, K. Gnanadas, son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Tamilarasan, who witnessed the occurrence has been examined as P.W.2 and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 . On the side of the Transport Corporation, their driver was examined as R.W.1. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed, after holding that the driver of the Transport Corporation alone was responsible, passed an award of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport corporation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.

4. It is brought to our notice that pending disposal of the appeal, the first respondent viz., G. Kuppan, husband of the deceased, died. Since the respondents are the children of the deceased, the above submission is hereby recorded and no further petition is required for the same.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation, after pointing out the First Information Report, which has been marked as Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.2, who is said to be an eyewitness to the accident, would submit that inasmuch as the deceased got down from a signal point and in that way, she fell down and sustained fatal injury, neither the driver nor the Transport Corporation is responsible for the same and the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the said aspect. He further contended that the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal, is excessive.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the deceased was getting down in a bus stop along with P.W.2 and without noticing the same, the driver took the bus, thereby she fell down. Accordingly, the driver alone was responsible and the same was rightly found by the Tribunal. He further contended that the amount arrived at by the Tribunal is reasonable and acceptable and there is no ground for interference.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the judgment impugned and all other materials placed before the Tribunal.

8. Among the witnesses examined on the side of the claimants, P.W.2 is said to have witnessed the occurrence. He made a complaint to the police immediately after the accident. The said complaint has been marked as Ex.P.1. Based on the same, a case has been registered in Cr.No.718/93 on the file of Thirupapuliyur Police Station. Though it is the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred in a bus stop at Thirupapuliyur, in the complaint given by P.W.2, he specifically stated that the accident occurred at the signal point. The following statement made to the police is relevant, which reads as follows:

9. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that the said complaint was made by P.W.2, who is non else than eyewitness examined on the side of the claimants. It is also relevant to note the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the corporation bus. In his evidence, he has stated that at the signal point, on seeing the red signal, he stopped the bus and after getting green signal, he proceeded further. At that time, the deceased attempted to get down from the front footboard and fell down and sustained fatal injury. No doubt, the Transport corporation has not examined their conductor, but considering the categorical statement of the eyewitness i.e., P.W.2 in Ex.P.1 and the assertion made by R.W.1 before the Court, we are of the view that the accident occurred at the signal point. Though it is cla