JUDGMENT :

V.M. VELUMANI, J.

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.”

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 30.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.

3. The appellant is the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. The respondents 1 to 3 filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Kumari, who died in the accident that took place on 30.07.2015.

4. According to respondents 1 to 3, on 30.07.2015 at about 02.30 P.M., while the deceased Kumari was traveling in the car bearing Registration No. PY-01X-3233 owned by 4th respondent and insured with 5th respondent on the Villupuram-Thiruvannamalai 234 Natioanl Highways Road near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-32N-3661 belonging to appellant, who was driving the bus from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car in which the said Kumari was traveling and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Kumari sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3, filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of said Kumari against the appellant-Transport Corporation and the respondents 4 & 5, being the owner and insurer of the car respectively.

5. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 3. According to the appellant, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus at moderate speed from Villupuram to Tirupathi near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver saw a passerby suddenly crossing the road. On seeing this, the driver of the bus tried to save the person and dashed on the car bearing Registration No. PY-01X-3233 which was coming in the opposite direction and thus the accident occurred. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The 4th respondent-owner of the car remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

7. The 5th respondent-Insurance Company filed separate counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3. The 5th respondent is an unnecessary party in the claim petition. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. F.I.R. was registered only against the driver of the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car owned by 4th respondent. The respondents 1 to 3 stated in the claim petition that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. At the time of accident, the insurance policy was taken for only three persons in the car. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to claim any compensation from this respondent. The 5th respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and PW-2, one Kathirvel, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-3 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. The appellant-Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus, viz. Kasinathan as RW-1 and no document was marked. The 5th respondent examined one Ashokkumar as RW-2 and marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1.

9. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and do