The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the principles of negligence in determining liability for a bus accident resulting in the death of a passenger.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Challenge in this Appeal, is to the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 1188 of 2011, dated 9/9/2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai 1, by which the Tribunal, after holding that the driver of the appellant Corporation was negligent in causing the accident, which resulted in the death of one Krishnamoorthy, awarded compensation of Rs.13,21,600/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim.

2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that on 3/12/2010, at 2.45 p.m., when Krishnamoorthy, was travelling as a passenger in a bus owned by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, bearing Registration No. TN01N-5333, from Perambur Barracks Road to Strahans Road, proceeding from South to North direction, opposite to Kohinoor hotel, the driver of the bus, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and when he suddenly turned towards West, Krishnamoorthy, who was standing inside the bus, near the front exit, was thrown out from the bus, fell on the road and the back wheel of the bus ran over on him. Four days later, he died on 7/12/2010 in the hospital. A case in crime No. 665/P3/10 has been registered against the driver of the bus, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kilpauk Traffic Investigation, Chennai.

3. Wife, two sons and mother filed M.C.O.P. No. 1188 of 2011, claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.

4. Metropolitan Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, opposed the claim petition, contending inter-alia that at the time of accident, bus was plying along Perambur Barracks Road and when it reached Strahans road, the driver of the bus reduced the speed and turned the bus towards Strahans road. It is further submitted that few passengers were travelling on the foot board and the crew had advised them to come inside the bus. Despite advice, the passengers travelled on the foot board. Taking advantage of the slow movement of the bus, one of the passengers, jumped out of the moving bus, fell down and sustained injuries. According to the Corporation, though the accident occurred due to the gross negligent act of the passenger, who travelled in the foot board, the crew admitted him in Government Stanley Hospital. According to the Corporation, had the advise been taken, the accident would not have occurred. Thus, they denied negligence on the part of the driver and consequently, liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, the Transport Corporation also disputed the age, avocation, income and the dependency of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased, examined herself as P.W.1. P.W.2 is stated to be the eye witness. Ex.P.1 Post Mortem certificate, Ex.P.2 Legal heirs certificate, Ex.P.3 copy of the transfer certificate of the second claimant, Ex.P.4 copy of the transfer certificate of the third claimant and Ex.P.5 copy of the FIR in Crime No. 665/2010, registered on the file of G-3 Kilpauk Traffic Investigation have been produced on the side of the claimants/respondents.

6. Conductor of the Transport Corporation bus has been examined as R.W.1 and no document has been marked on the side of the Corporation.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, vide judgment and decree dated 9/9/2014, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1188 of 2011 held that the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN01N-5333 was negligent, in causing the accident and quantified the compensation at Rs.13,21,600/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation of Rs.6,96,600/- to the wife of the deceased, Rs.3,00,000/- each to the children, and just Rs.25,000/- to the mother of the deceased.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Transport Corporation has filed the instant appeal.

9. Mr. S. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the Transport Corporation contended that the deceased, travelled on the foot board of the bus and taking advantage o