The respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in the M.C.O.P.No.100/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ariyalur against the award of the said Tribunal dated 24.01.2006 made in the above said MCOP awarding a sum of Rs.2,48,200/- as compensation to the respondent herein for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place on 26.12.2003 at about 12.30 p.m at Tulukkavelicolony, Chozhapuram on the Kumbakonam-Chennai main road.

2. The respondent herein had filed MCOP No.100/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ariyalur contending that he met with an accident, while he was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN-49 N-2612 on the Kumbakonam - Chennai main road keeping his father as a pillion rider, as the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-32 N-0905 belonging to the appellant transport corporation which came in the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle in which he was proceeding, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries leading to permanent disability, despite medical treatment. It was the further contention raised in the MCOP that while he was proceeding in his motor cycle cautiously following the rules of the road, the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-32 N-0905 which came in the opposite direction, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the unfortunate accident, as the said bus dashed against the motor cycle in which the respondent/petitioner was proceeding. The respondent/petitioner had also averred that he was earning a daily income of Rs.200/-and his average monthly income prior to the date of accident was Rs.5,000/-; that after the accident he suffered disability to a larger extent which resulted in the loss of his earning capacity. The respondent/petitioner had claimed a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, without giving any split up particulars, as compensation from the appellant transport corporation.

3. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the appellant/transport corporation by filing a counter statement denying the petition averments regarding the manner in which the accident took place and contending that it was the negligence on the part of the petitioner which resulted in the unfortunate accident and that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. It was further averred in the counter statement that when the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was nearing the place of accident, the driver of the bus saw a cow crossing the road and in order to avoid hitting the cow, he turned the bus towards the extreme left and stopped the same and that the respondent/petitioner, who came in the moped in the opposite direction having his father as a pillion rider, on seeing the bus lost his balance, as a result of which the moped came in a zig-zag manner, dashed against the stationary bus and thus the respondent sustained injuries. The petition averments regarding the age, occupation and income of the respondent/petitioner, nature of injuries sustained by him, the treatment given to him and the disabilities suffered by him were also disputed by the appellant/respondent in the counter statement. The appellant/respondent had prayed for the dismissal of the MCOP with cost holding the appellant transport corporation not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent/petitioner.

4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted trial, in which three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 15 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A15 on the side of the respondent/petitioner. The X-ray produced by the respondent/petitioner has been marked as M.O.1. The driver of the offending bus figured as the sole witness, namely R.W.1, and no document was marked, on the side of the appellant/respondent.

The Tribunal considered the evidence brought before it, both oral and documentary, in