According to the respondents, that on 27.08.2011, about 9.15 hours, when the husband of the 1st respondent was riding a cycle, on the left side of the mud road, towards North from South, a State Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN23N1462, which came in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against their sole breadwinner, and he died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.407 of 2011, for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus.

2. According to the respondent, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years and earned Rs.15,000/- per month in brick business. For the pecuniary and non pecuniary loss, they filed M.C.O.P.No.862 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Vellore, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. The State Transport Corporation filed, their objections to the claim contending inter alia that the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN23-N-1462 was not involved in the accident. They submitted that, when the vehicle was returning on its trip from Vellore, some policemen informed him that the vehicle was involved in a accident. Though, the driver denied the same, a criminal case was registered against him. According to the State Transport Corporation, had there been any accident as alleged, the passengers would not have permitted the driver to proceed further. According to the Corporation, in as much as the registration of the crime was on 28.08.2011, on the next day, that itself would prove that the accident did not occur. Thus, they denied the very involvement of the vehicle and the consequential liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, the State Transport Corporation disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the claims tribunal framed the following issues for consideration.

1. whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so what is the amount and

3. by whom to be paid

5. Before the claims tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and adduced evidence. Ex.P1, copy of FIR, Ex.P2, postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, legal heir certificate and Ex.P4, xerox copy of Driving Licence, have been marked on the side of the claimants. Driver of the State Transport Corporation examined himself as RW1 and denied the accident and involvement of the vehicle. Ex.R1, copy of the judgment in C.C. No.112 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore, has been marked.

6. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal held that RW1, driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. Considering the evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants, towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,83,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit.

7. Being aggrieved by the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the vehicle was not involved in the accident. The claims tribunal has failed to consider the testimony of RW1 driver of the bus in proper perspective. Quantum of compensation has been assailed, as excessive on the grounds that without any basis, the claims tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

9. Though, PW1, has adduced evidence that when her husband was riding a cycle, on the left side of the mud road towards North from South near Kaniyambadi Ambekdhar statue situated at Vellore to Arani main road,