1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.03.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court) Nagercoil.

2. The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated as hereunder:-

2.1. It is a case of fatal accident. On the fateful day, namely, 27.01.2007, when the deceased was proceeding from Nagerkovil to Madurai in a van bearing Registration No.TN 74 K 8902, the vehicle belonging to the first respondent bearing Reg. No. TN 07 N 9404, dashed against the van driven by the deceased. In the said incident, the deceased sustained injuries and he died on the spot. The claimants filed a claim petition claiming a compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Before the tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and one exhibit was marked. The Tribunal, by its judgment, dated 31.03.2011, had awarded a sum of Rs.4,46,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. As against the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is more and excessive and also they are not liable to pay compensation.

2.2. The case of the claimants before the tribunal was that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonged to the first respondent, the accident occurred and as a result, the deceased died on the spot.

2.3. The respondents stated due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident had happened and therefore, they were not liable to pay compensation.

2.4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded compensation as indicated above. As against which, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been instituted by the insurance company questioning the liability and quantum.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. The claim against the Insurance Company is not maintainable. The claimants are put to strict proof of the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and also the place, date and time of the accident and therefore, they are not liable for the accident. Further, the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. Added further, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to claim compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation based on the oral and documentary evidence placed for its scrutiny and the same is a just and fair compensation and therefore, there is no scope of warranting circumstances to interfere with the impugned award of the tribunal. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. The points for consideration in this appeal is who is liable for the accident; whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether the legal heirs is entitled to claim such compensation?

6. The tribunal has analysed the occurrence, based on the oral evidence of the eye witnesses to the accident, which stood corroborated by the version of the claimants and concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver for the simple reason that it is more evident that Ex.P.1 is the registered First Information Report which clearly shows that the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent who is the driver of the bus and contents of Ex.P.1 corroborates with the evidence of R.W.1 with regard to the accident. In this connection, the deposition of P.W.2 is crucial and the learned Judge, at paragraph No.10 has cle