Ratios
a. Persons who are engaged in unskilled jobs or artisans and small traders may not have any documentary proof to prove their avocation or employment and oral evidence can be permitted to prove their employment and income.
b. In the absence of class 1 legal heir, the other legal representatives of the victim/deceased who got contribution from the deceased are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the victim.

Aggrieved by the award dated 19. 2008 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court), Ranipet, the appellant-Transport Corporation preferred this appeal.

2. Heard Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. Jaggannathan, learned counsel for the respondents.

.3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

.On 212. 2005 about 4.30 p.m., when the deceased after loading the gunny bags, was trying to get down from a bus bearing Registration No. TN32N0672, owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, after loading the gunny bags, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus and due to which, the deceased fell down, the back wheel ran over his hip and he was crushed to death. Legal representatives of the deceased have preferred a claim for Rs. 4,00,000/-.

4. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim application. They denied the negligence of the driver and disputed the entitlement of the claimants for compensation on the ground that they are not dependants.

5. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and an eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. Exhibit P-1 – First Information Report, dated 212. 2005, Exhibit P-2 – Post mortem certificate, dated 212. 2005, Exhibit P-3 – Inspection report, 212. 2005 and Exhibit P-4 – Charge sheet, dated 31. 2006 filed against the driver of the bus and Exhibit P-5 – Legal Heir Certificate were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. Driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation.

6. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the driver of the bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident and awarded Rs. 3,27,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.

7. Assailing the correctness of the award, learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the Tribunal has erred in relying on the evidence of the claimants and fixed the negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to note down that when the deceased got down from the bus, he lost his balance, fell down and due to which, he sustained injuries. He also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have given credence to the evidence of R.W.1, driver.

8. On the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- and consequently, the computation of dependency compensation, is arbitrary. He further submitted that in the absence of any proof of dependency, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation to the married sisters and other claimants.

.9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased was engaged as a coolie at the time of accident and the Tribunal, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence, let in by both parties, has properly fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and the said finding cannot be termed as perverse.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that there is no illegality in determination of the monthly income of the deceased for computing the dependency compensation. According to him, there is no prohibition under the Motor Vehicles Act for the Legal Representatives to maintain a claim petition and therefore, the compensation awarded to the married sisters, does not require any interference. In this context, he relied on the decisions made in Vidya Dhar dubey v. U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. (1997) ACJ 1388 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor (2005) ACJ 1618.

11. To prove the manner of accident, P.W.1, wife of the deceased has deposed that on the date of accident,