JUDGMENT Swamikkannu, J. 1. A Tribunal is to be guided by the evidence and not by the pleadings alone, though pleadings may be the basis for putting forth a case, yet when there is a vital contradiction between the evidence and the pleadings the said contradiction can loom to large so as to uphold or reject the evidence. In the instant case, the appellants have put forward a case, according to the respondent herein, which is not pleaded in the petition, that another bus was going ahead of the bus in question viz., TMN 4087. When the existence of the said bus is not also borne out by Ex. B. 1, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the case put forward by the appellants during evidence should not be given credence. It is relevant to note that the case put forward by the appellants-parents of the deceased in their petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is that on 1-1-1981 at about 4-05 p.m., while the deceased Shirajudeen was travelling in the scooter driven by one Rajendran, the bus belonging to the respondent herein bearing Registration No. TMN 4087 was driven rashly and negligently and while overtaking the scooter, the bus hit against him and the scooter twisted and he was overthrown and his head was crushed causing instantaneous death. The appellants who are the parents of the deceased filed the petition for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. In the counter filed by the respondent hereinbefore the Tribunal, it is, inter alia, contended that the accident was not due to any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. The bus was proceeding towards north. At that time, the scooter driven by Rajendran in which the deceased was seated on the pillion was driven in a rash and negligent manner and in his anxiety to overtake the bus squeezed in between the right side of the bus and the dustbin. The scooter dashed against the dust-bin first and was turned left due to the impact. The deceased was thrown away and he fell underneath the right rear wheel of the bus. The accident had thus happened. The claim is excessive. 3. On the above pleadings, The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the driver? (ii) To what compensation? The deceased was thrown away and he fell underneath the right rear wheel of the bus. The accident had thus happened. The claim is excessive. 3. On the above pleadings, The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the driver? (ii) To what compensation? Syed Nizamudeen-first petitioner/first appellant herein examined himself as PW, 1 and also examined P.W. 2 Rajendran and P.W. 3 Subbaiah on the side of the appellants hereinbefore the Tribunal. Ex. B.1 certified copy of rough sketch prepared by the Inspector of Police in P.S. Cr. No. 1 of 1981 dated 1-1-1981 and Ex. B. 2 certified copy of report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector were filed on the side, of the respondent herein, and R.W. 1 Kaliaperumal, driver of the bus involved in the accident and R.W. 2 Bhas-karan, Motor Vehicles Inspector were marked on the side of the respondent hereinbefore the Tribunal. Ex. A. 1 pay register showing the salary of the deceased Shirajudeen, and Ex. A. 2 and Ex. A. 3 photographs showing the accident were also filed on the side of the petitioners/appellants hereinbefore the Tribunal. On the consideration of the above evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, under point No. (i), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the occurrence has happened only when the scooter has attempted to overtake the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Under point No. (ii), the Tribunal arrived at the quantum of compensation as Rs. 6,000/- as just and reasonable amount of compensation that would be payable to the petitioners/appellants herein. In view of the finding under point No. (i), The Tribunal dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal, the petitioners have come forward with this appeal. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has not considered the evidence properly, and as such its decision that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus TMN 4087 is wrong. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence of P.W. 2 Rajendran, the rider of the scooter as well as that of R.W. 1 Kalia-perumal, the driver of the bus. 4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence of P.W. 2 Rajendran, the rider of the scooter as well as that of R.W. 1 Kalia-perumal, the driver of the bus. 4. It is relevant in this connection to note that there is nothing material that has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 2 so as to discredit his evidence, especially when he has claimed to be the eye-witness for the occurrence and that too, P.W. 2 is the rider of the scooter at the time of the accident. 5. In his chief-examination, P.W. 2 Rajendran has stated as follows: (Matter omitted as in vernacular) 6. In his cross examination, P.W. 2 has deposed as follows: (Matter omitted as in vernacular) 7. On the other hand, R.W. 1, the driver of the bus Kaliyaperumal, has stated in his chief-examination before the Tribunal as follows: (Matter omitted as in vernacular) 8. In his cross examination, R.W. 1 has stated as follows ;- (Matter omitted as in vernacular) 9. The evidence on record, both oral and documentary, shows that there had been a bus going ahead of the bus TMN 4087 at the time of the occurrence and that the driver of the Bus TMN 408? was attempting to overtake the bus which was going ahead. This fact has been completely lost sight of by the Tribunal. On the other hand, a careful scrutiny of the evidence clearly shows that the bus TMN 4087 which was driven by R.W. 1 the driver of the said bus was attempting to overtake the bus which was going ahead of it in the road south to north while the bus TMN 4087 was proceeding towards north. It is relevant in this connection to note that there had been a distance of 20 ft. from the existence of blood-stains and also the existence of the hair of the deceased. This aspect clearly shows as to how the accident had happened. Merely there was some existence of scratches on the body of the bus TMN 4087, it does not in any way help the claim of the respondent that the accident was entirely due to the driver of the scooter while attempting to overtake the bus TMN 40x7 in the process of which the deceased got crushed underneath the rear wheel of the bus. It is also not known as to how the Tribunal had upheld the case of the driver of the bus in question and as contended in the contents of the counter filed by the respondent that the pillion rider of the scooter got crushed in between the dustbin and the right side of the bus TMN 4087. There is mud portion which is about 6 ft. At the time of the occurrence, it is seen that the bus was lying at a distance of 3 ft. 5 inch on the eastern side of tarred portion of the road. Therefore, altogether 9 ft. 6 inch is the distance in between the dustbin and the bus TMN 4087 at the time of the occurrence. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that it was only due to rash driving of the scooter that the occurrence had happened is not correct, and it is against the evidence available on record. A careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record clearly shows negligence on the part of the driver of the bus who is no other than R.W. 1. It is relevant in this connection to note that in the cross-examination of R.W. 1 it is stated that R.W. 1 was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which had resulted the deceased in falling underneath the vehicle and being crushed by the rear wheel of the bus. This aspect clearly shows that R.W. 1 the driver of the bus TMN 4087 was at fault, and not P.W. 2 the scooter rider. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal relating to this aspect is hereby set aside and it is hereby held by this Court, on the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, that it is only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus TMN 4087 by R.W. 1 that the accident had happened in which the deceased who was the pillion rider of the scooter got himself crushed by the rear wheel of the bus in question. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation that is payable by the wrong doer is concerned to the appellants herein, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is correct in arriving at the compensation of Rs. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation that is payable by the wrong doer is concerned to the appellants herein, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is correct in arriving at the compensation of Rs. 6,000/- and the said amount is just and adequate and reasonable amount of compensation, and the said amount has to be paid to the appellants herein by the respondent herein as compensation for the death of the deceased as a result of the accident. 10. Under the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal is set aside, the appeal is allowed and an award for Rs 6000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition is passed in favour of the appellants herein. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. The respondent herein is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 6,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition within two months from today before the Tribunal.