1. The appeal is preferred by the claimants against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2005 made in MCOP No.555 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The deceased G.Sathishkumar met with an accident on 05.09.2003 at about 9.00 p.m. The said deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN31B 3297 to Karamadai. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN38N 0301 belonging to the respondent-Transport Corporation, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased thrown out from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injury. The deceased Sathiskumar died on the way to the hospital. The claimants are father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. In whose negligence the accident had occurred?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so how much? "

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus as well as the rider of the motor cycle and fixed the negligence at 50% on the driver of the bus and the rider of the motor cycle and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:-

Loss of income Rs.1,95,000/-

Loss of Love and affection

(Rs.25,000x2)Rs. 50,000/-Funeral expensesRs. 5,000/-

Total... Rs.2,50,000/-

Further, as the Tribunal already held that the deceased also responsible for the accident and fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the bus, the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.2,50,000 x 50/100) as compensation. Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in fixing the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and also amount awarded is very low and meager. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal in not accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 -the driver of the vehicle was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. PW2 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the accident register. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Postmortem report. Ex.P4 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Ex.P5 is the copy of the college certificate of the deceased. Ex.P6 is an identity card of the deceased. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the driver of the bus. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence.