1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District and sessions Judge, Ariyalur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioners is that on 11.07.2012, at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased Egambaram was travelling in two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-61-B-4665 in Trichy-Chennai Main Road, from east to west, while going near Pudhuchavadi, the respondent Transport Corporation bus came at high speed, dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was going, resulting in causing fatal injuries leading to his death on the spot itself. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent bus driver only. The deceased was aged 40 years and by carrying on Hotel Business and doing agricultural work, was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Petitioners, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased were dependant on the earnings of the deceased. Due to sudden death, the Petitioners lost the sole bread winner of the family. As such, the Petitioners claim a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.

3. On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the respondent contends that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the owner and insurer of the two wheeler involved in the accident. The accident does not occur in the manner as alleged by the petitioners. While the respondent bus was proceeding at normal speed, the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-61-B-4665 came at high speed in the opposite direction and as the rider was driving the two wheeler while talking in the cell phone lost control and dashed against the respondent bus resulting in his death. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and not due to negligence on the part of the respondent bus driver. The claim of the Petitioners about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is not true. The amount claimed by the Petitioners is exorbitant. Hence, the respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, produced documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17 to prove their claim. On the side of the respondent, driver of the bus involved in the accident deposed as R.W.1 but no document was produced. The Tribunal, on the basis of available evidence on record, found that the negligence of the respondent bus driver alone caused the accident, passed award for a sum of Rs.7,45,000/- payable by the respondents to the Petitioner. Aggrieved over the said finding of the Tribunal, the respondent-Corporation has come forward with the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent-Transport Corporation contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and wrongly fixed the entire negligence on the bus driver. The respondent-Corporation further contended that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal for the deceased and the multiplier applied by it is not correct. It is only due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler, the accident occurred. Hence, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The appellant-Transport corporation prays for setting aside the award and to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/claimants contends that the negligent driving of the bus driver is the sole cause for the accident and the Tribunal by correctly appreciating the evidence on record, passed the just and reasonable award, which needs no interference. Hence, the Petitioners sought for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Issue regarding negligence:-

The 1st petitioner who is th