By consent, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ramanathapuram.

3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows:

(i) The appellant is the second respondent and the respondents 1 to 4 are the petitioners/claimants and the fifth respondent/owner of the auto is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ramanathapuram. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2009 claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation.

(ii) According to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, on 23.07.2009 about 06.00 p.m., one Karuppiah, husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 and 3 and son of the fourth respondent along with his friends viz., Ravi and Sakthivel were standing on the southern edge of Courtallam to Five Falls road in order to cross the road. At that time, the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-72-AA-0975 came from west to east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Karuppiah. Due to that, the said Karuppiah sustained multiple injuries. On the way to hospital, he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

(iii) According to the respondents 1 to 4, the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto. At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged about 42 years. He was working as B.T. Assistant in Panchayat Union Middle School at Panayadiyendhal Village and his gross salary was Rs.23,109/-. The deceased had bright chance of promotion and he would have been promoted to the post of C.E.O. and would have drawn higher salary, if he was not died in the accident.

(iv) The respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Karuppiah and also the dependants on the deceased. Therefore, they filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,18,99,384/- as compensation, but restricted their claim to Rs.40,00,000/-.

(v) The appellant filed counter statement denying various allegations and submitted that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the Auto driver. The deceased, who was standing on the southern side of the road, suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming auto. Therefore, the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove the income, salary and age of the deceased. The appellant has further stated in the counter statement that the owner of the auto, the fifth respondent herein violated the policy condition. The Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli, issued a permit to the said auto with the condition to ply within the radius of 30 Kilometres from Tirunelveli. The accident took place at Courtallam, which is situated more than 30 Kilometres from Tirunelveli. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation for violation of permit condition by the fifth respondent.

(vi) Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary points for consideration.

(vii) Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the first respondent herself examined as P.W.1 and one Sakthiveli, eyewitness was examined as P.W.2 and one Usharani was examined as P.W.3 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the appellant, one Palani and Arumugam were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and three documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3.

(viii) The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aut