Judgment :- 1. Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore has filed this appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, dated 6.2.1997 in M.C.O.P. No. 457 of 1993. The 1st respondent herein has filed the claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an accident occurred on 20.11.92 at 9.45 a.m. Her case is that the 1st respondent herein drove his scooter and hit against her when she was walking along the road. The case of the 1st respondent is that the bus bearing Registration No. TN 37 N 0388 was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter on the rear side. Due to the impact the scooterist lost control and dashed against the pedestrian, complainant. The scooterist, the 1st respondent immediately gave a complaint in the police station. Since the Transport Corporation as well as the owner of the Scooter have been impleaded as party respondents, the Tribunal after careful consideration of the evidence found that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver and awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- compensation. As against this the appeal has been filed. 2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant is that the scooterist dashed against the pedestrian, the claimant herein and thereafter hit against the bus. The bus never hit against the scooterist. The plea has been raised in the counter filed by the appellant herein and the Court below has failed to consider the same, when two vehicles are involved in the accident it is the duty of the Court to consider as to who is responsible for the accident and depending upon the degree of rash and negligence the compensation ought to have been apportioned. 3. I carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the appellant. In the counter filed by the appellant herein it is specifically stated as follows: — “After the passenger alighted and boarded the conductor of the bus gave signal to proceed. 3. I carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the appellant. In the counter filed by the appellant herein it is specifically stated as follows: — “After the passenger alighted and boarded the conductor of the bus gave signal to proceed. So our driver took the vehicle and proceeded further at about 10.10 A.M. At that time near Sowdamman Koil a scooterist who was coming out of a medical shop in the northern side of road took his scooter, parked ahead of our vehicle, started it in a rash and negligent manner hastily and dashed against a lady who was coming from east to west and then swerved his scooter to the right and hit the left side body of the vehicle. On seeing this our driver stopped the bus and came down. At that time the scooterist stated that the bus hit his scooter and hence he lost control and dashed against the pedestrian lady. If at all our bus dashed behind the scooter the scooterist could have fell down and sustained injuries, scooter could have been damaged.” From the above extracted para it is very clear that the scooterist has hit against the pedestrian and in the impact the scooter swerved to the right side and hit against the bus. Whereas the scooterist as well as the claimant has claimed that the bus first dashed against the scooter and thereby the scooterist lost control and consequently dashed against the pedestrian. The Tribunal had accepted the evidence of P.W.1 as well as R.W.1 and the F.I.R. which was given immediately after the accident. 4. The driver of the bus who had been examined as R.W.2 has stated as follows in his deposition. Tamil From the above evidence of the driver of the bus it is clear that the driver of the bus did not mention anything about the Scooterist hitting the pedestrian first and due to the impact the swerving of the scooter on the right side and then hitting the bus. He has merely stated that the scooterist had dashed against the left side of the bus. If really the accident took place as pleaded by the driver of the bus in the counter statement then in the evidence he could have stated as to the manner in which the accident occurred in detail. He has merely stated that the scooterist had dashed against the left side of the bus. If really the accident took place as pleaded by the driver of the bus in the counter statement then in the evidence he could have stated as to the manner in which the accident occurred in detail. In the absence of any detail in the evidence and as well as he having failed to give the F.I.R. immediately after the accident, I am of the opinion that his deposition as well as the defence put forth in the counter of the 3rd respondent cannot be accepted and the same is only an afterthought. For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and found that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and the appellant is liable to pay compensation. 5. With regard to quantum of compensation I am of the view that the same is very reasonable while considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment (nearly one month as in-patient) for the fracture sustained by her. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Consequently the C.M.P. No. 14287 of 1997 is also dismissed.