Every legal representative entitled for compensation.

Swamikkannu, J.

1. The first respondent, the Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd., has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Vellore, made in M.A.C.T.O P. No. 339 of 1979 dated 27-4-1981.

2. Two petitions, namely M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 361 and 339 of 1979 bad been filed by the husband and the mother respectively of the deceased bad been filed before the Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Husband, in his petition claimed compensation of Rs. 30,200/- while the mother of the deceased in her petition claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that she had suffered mental agony and pain on account of the loss of her youngest daughter. Both the petitions were tried jointly and a common award is passed by the Tribunal.

3. In this appeal we are concerned only with the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 339 of 1979 filed by the mother of the deceased Santha.

4. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows :--At about 3 p.m. on 20-5-1979 when the deceased Santha and her husband were returning to Tiruvannamalai in Avalurpet-Tiruvannamalai road, after finishing their work at Seriyandal village, the bus bearing registration No. TMN 7544 belonging to the appellant herein, driven by the second respondent herein came behind them at a high speed without sounding horn, clashed and ran over the deceased Santha as a result of which the deceased Santha died on the spot due to the fatal injuries sustained by her. As the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant, by its driver the second respondent herein, the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein are liable to pay the compensation. At the time of the death, the deceased Santha was hale and healthy and she was assisting her husband in all respects. She was married to the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 361 of 1979 just 9 months prior to the accident. It is alleged in the petition that she has suffered mental agony and pain on account of the loss of her youngest daughter.

5. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein have filed independent counters resisting the petition on the ground that the accident had not occurred in the manner set out in the petition. On the other hand the accident had taken place solely on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased Santha as she darted across the road all of a sudden from one side to another. While the second respondent was driving the vehicle near the place of the accident, he saw the petitioner and his wife while they were proceeding on the left side of the road side by side. After the bus had passed them he heard a notice of the impact and immediately thereafter this respondent stopped the vehicle on the very spot itself. At that time, the male who accompanied the deceased run away and some of the passengers of the bus gave a chase and caught him. It was then learnt that the deceased was his wife, that they had no been getting on well for a long time and had quarrelling with each other. As the petitioner had no intention to live with the deceased Santha, he pushed her like that. The second respondent cannot therefore be held responsible for the accident. In fact, the impact was on the rear side of the bus arid it was entirely due to the conduct of the deceased and the husband of the deceased.

6. On these pleadings, the Tribunal had framed two points for consideration. They are:

(1) Whether the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the first respondent by its driver, the second respondent as alleged in the petition;

(2) Whether the petitioner in both the petitions is entitled to claim compensation, and if so, to what amount?

7. Evidence had been recorded in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 361 of 1979 and the same had been treated as evidence in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 339 of 1979 and a common award was passed by the T