Contributory negligence can be established even when the deceased violated transport regulations if it directly contributed to the accident.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the award passed in MCOP No. 445 of 2014, dated 30.6.2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

2. Admittedly, the claimant No. 1 is the father, claimant No. 2 is the mother and claimant No. 3 is the sister of the deceased - Govindaraju. The accident is admitted and the involvement of TVS Sport motor cycle and the bus bearing registration No. TN 55-0520 owned by the appellant transport Corporation, is not in dispute.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 15.12.2011, when the deceased - Govindaraju was returning to his school, after purchasing paper and pen, along with his three friends Venkateshwaran, Prasanth and Gowthamanraj on a motor cycle driven by the said Prasanth, one lorry, which was proceeding before the two - wheeler, had allowed the two - wheeler to overtake the lorry, and when the two - wheeler rider was proceeding after overtaking the said lorry, the bus bearing registration No. TN 55-0520, which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two - wheeler and as a result of which, all the four persons were thrown away and sustained serious injuries and the said Govindaraju, despite treatment, succumbed to the injuries on 26.12.2011 and that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

4. The defence of the transport Corporation is that on 15.12.2011 at about 1.20 p.m. when the bus after brief stop at Vadakadu School Bus Stand, was proceeding towards west, two lorries and a Sumo car came from the opposite direction and on noticing the same, the bus driver diverted the bus towards left side of the road, that at that time, one twowheeler with four boys by overtaking the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing the same, the bus driver had immediately stopped the bus and sounded horn, that the two - wheeler rider, who was unable to control the vehicle, had dashed against the front right bumper of the bus and caused the accident and that the motor cycle rider was responsible for the accident.

5. During inquiry, the claimants have examined the claimant No. 1 as PW 1 and one Rengan, alleged to be the occurrence witness, as PW 2 and exhibited five documents as Exh. P1 to Exh. P5. The appellant transport Corporation has examined its driver Subramanian as RW 1 and adduced no documentary evidence.

6. The trial court, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, has passed the impugned award dated 30.6.2015, holding that the bus driver was responsible for the accident and directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 6,62,000 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said award, the transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the deceased - Govindaraju was proceeding on a two - wheeler along with three persons and while the rider had tried to overtake the lorry without noticing the bus, which came from the opposite direction and thus invited the accident, that the accident had occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself and that even otherwise, the deceased had contributed to the accident and as such, he was liable for contributory negligence.

8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was proceeding on a two - wheeler as a pillion rider along with his three friends Venkateshwaran, Prasanth and Gowthamanraj and that the two - wheeler was owned by the said Gowthamanraj. The claimants in order to prove their case have examined PW 2 Rengan as occurrence