Claim for compensation raised by legal heirs of deceased.

P. Sathasivam, J.:

1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1998 of 1993 dated 5.8.1996, Pallavan Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. Regarding disallowed claim, the claimants have filed cross-objection No.38 of 1998.

2. Since the appeal and cross-objection arise from the same order, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

3. In respect of death of one Sunil Goyal, the widow, minor son and parents of the deceased prayed for a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation, passed an award for Rs.6,15,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal and with regard to disallowed claim the claimants have filed cross-objection

4. It is seen that the accident took place on 7.4.1993 at 2.20 p.m., in Kilpauk Garden Road, Madras involving the bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation and the deceased who was coming in a motor cycle sustained multiple injuries. He died in Apollo Hospital on 10.4.1993 due to the injuries sustained in the course of the said accident. It is the case of the claimants that the accident was caused solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and on the other hand the Corporation has denied any rashness and negligence on the part of its driver.

5. With regard to question relating to negligence, admittedly the only witness examined on the side of the claimants is P.W.2. He deposed before the court that on 7.4.1993 at about 2.00 p.m., while he was proceeding in his cycle in Kilpauk Garden Road from east to west, the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle from east to west. At that time according to him the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation coming from the opposite direction came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. He further deposed that, because of the said impact the motor cyclist was thrown away. The injured was taken in an auto to the hospital by the driver of the Corporation bus. He further deposed that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence and rashness of the driver of the Corporation bus and he was enquired by the police. In the cross-examination it is suggested to P.W.2 that, it was only the deceased that in order to overtake other vehicles came to the right side of the road and dashed against the bus. The said suggestion has been denied by him. No doubt, P.W.2 though deposed before the court highlighting the manner of accident, he did not make any complaint to the police. However as stated earlier, even in the chief-examination he has specifically stated that, he was enquired by the police regarding the accident. No doubt, the claimants have not summoned police records, first information report and sketch as well as the outcome of the investigation. Likewise, the Corporation has also not taken any step for summoning those documents. In the absence of such material we have considered the oral evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of driver - R.W.1.

6. In his evidence as R.W.1 the driver has stated that, the Kilpauk Garden Road is running east to west and at the time of accident he was driving his bus from west to east. According to him he was proceeding on the left side of the road and he saw that two motor cyclist were coming from the opposite side. He further deposed that while overtaking the other motor cyclist the deceased came to the right side of the road. According to him the deceased dashed against the bus on the front left side pumper of the bus in spite of halting his bus. He also admitted that he was he who took the injured to the hospital. In cross-e