The brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 if he is a legal representative and he was dependent on the deceased.

This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nagarcoil in M.C.O.P. No. 34 of 1990. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. According to the claimants, on 3.8.1989, the deceased Ganapathy, was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. TCB 7613 belonging to the appellant/Corporation. It was driven by the driver of the Corporation in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased Ganapathy was thrown out of the bus in the back entrance in a curve near Esakkiamman temple at Kootumangalam. The accident happened at 530 p.m. on 3.8.1989. The victim was taken to the Neyyor hospital immediately. The doctor pronounced him as dead. The death was purely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus and the accident had happened. The deceased would have lived for another 52 years and the claimants would have received from him not less than Rs. 1,854/- per month till his marriage at the age of 30. The deceased was 23 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, according to the claimants, the claimants have incurred damages to the tune of Rs. 2,14,536/- Claimants 2 to 4 are other sisters and brothers of the deceased.

3. In the counter file by the first respondent in the Claim petition, the mode of the accident as stated in the Claim Petition was denied, when the bus was proceeding towards Monday market at Manavalakurichi, the bus was proceeding only in a slow speed along the left side of the road, a travelling passenger suddenly jumped down from the bus as his residence was nearer to the particular spot. In doing so, he sustained injuries. The contention that the passenger was thrown out through the back entrance while passing through the curve was false and denied. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The quantum of compensation claimed was also excessive.

4. In the counter filed by the second respondent in the claim petition, the contentions as raised in the counter of the first respondent were repeated.

5. On a consideration of the said pleadings and the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was only the result of the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant/Corporation. With reference to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 1,13,800/- as payable to the claimants. The present appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was sufficient evidence to show that the accident occurred only when the deceased Ganapathy had suddenly got out of the vehicle when the bus was proceeding in a non-stop place. He had obtained ticket only for Manavalakurichi, but got down at Kootumangalam because the said spot was nearer to his village. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the driver of the bus cannot at all be blamed and that at any rate the deceased himself was responsible for contributory negligence.

7. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents contends that the accident took place only at the corner of the bend in the road. It is also pointed out that it is not the case of the appellant that the deceased was standing on the foot-board.

8. I have considered the submissions of both sides on the question of negligence. It is true that in the evidence it has been brought out that the deceased had purchased a ticket only for Manavalakurichi and that the place where the accident took place was nearer to his village. From this circumstances, it is sought to be contended by the appellant Corporation that the deceased tried to get down from the moving bus in a place nearer to his native village and that therefore, the driver of the bus cannot be held responsible for the accident. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the driver of the bus has not been examined. It is the admitted case of R.W.1, conductor of the Corporation bus, that he did not caution the passenger not to g