Ratios:
a. Dismissal of a claim petition should be made only if the evidence let in by the accident victims is not legally acceptable, remote to the cause of accident or it is a case of no evidence.
b. In the suit claiming damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, on the death of the plaintiff, his legal heirs would be entitled to claim only the loss or expenses to the estate of the plaintiff.

Against the order of dismissal of the claim petition, legal representatives of the deceased, Manoharan have filed the present appeal has been filed.

2. Initially, the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 83 of 2003 was preferred by one Mr. Manoharan (since deceased) for the injuries said to have been sustained by him, in an accident, which occurred on 6. 2003.

3. The averments made in the Claim Petition are as follows: On 6. 2003, the claimant (since deceased) trying to board a bus bearing Registration No. TN-29-N-0900 at Dharmapuri Town Bus Stand following other passengers, the driver of the bus, without noticing the passengers, suddenly started the bus, in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, he fell down and his left leg was crushed. Immediately, he was taken to Dharmapuri Government Hospital and thereafter, referred to St. John’s Medical Hospital at Bangalore for better treatment. Prior to the accident, he was engaged in rearing cattle and earned Rs. 5,000/- per month. A case in Cr. No. 748 of 2003, was registered against the driver of the bus on the file of the Dharmapuri B-1 Town Police Station under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. He claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. Disputing the manner of accident, the respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that the claimant (since deceased) under the influence of Alcohol, was boarding and alighting in standing buses at Dharmapuri bus stand, causing nuisance to the public. After permitting the passengers to board, the driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation started the bus. At that time, the claimant (since deceased), who was in an intoxicated and erratic mood, by standing on the window. He lost his balance, fell down and sustained injuries. Since the bus was fully crowded, the crew could not notice the claimant (since deceased). However, it was later on known to them. In these circumstances, the respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant (since deceased) examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2, is the Doctor, who examined the claimant (since deceased) with reference to medical records. Exhibit P—FIR, Exhibit P-2 – Wound Certificate, Exhibit P-3 – Charge Sheet filed against the driver of the bus, Exhibit P-4 – Discharge Summary, Exhibit P-5 – Medical bill memo, Exhibit P-6 – Photographs, Exhibit P-7 – Car Rent receipts, Exhibit P-8 – Motor Vehicles Inspector report, Exhibit P-9 – Wound Certificate and Exhibit P-10 – X-Ray were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no document was filed on behalf of the respondent – Transport Corporation. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

6. The claimant (since deceased) died on 9. 2006. Thereafter, wife and children have filed M.P. No. 1 of 2009 to permit them to prefer the present Civil Micellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P. No. 83 of 2003, dated 15. 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal” (Additional District Judge), Dharmapuri and to accept the cause title. They have also filed M.P. No. 2 of 2009, seeking leave to file an appeal. Record of proceedings shows that both the Miscellaneous Applications were ordered by this Court on 27. 2009 and 18. 2009 respectively. However, there was a delay of 1142 days in filing the appeal. Having regard to the plea of the appellants that due to financial constraint, they could not pursue the statutory appeal in time, this Court, by order, dated 3. 2010 in M.P.No. 3 of 2009, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, despite the objections of the respondent-Transport Corporation.

7. Taking this Court through the contends of Exhibit P-1-FIR and Exhibit P-3 – Charge sheet filed against the driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation bus in Cr. No. 748 of 2003, under Sections 279 and 338 IPC