Judgment :- This is an appeal filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 854/1987 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem dated 10-8-1989. 2. The claimant, Chikkanna Chettiar filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 17-8-1987 at about 11.30 a.m. due to the negligent driving of driver of the Bus belong to respondent Corporation. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials though rejected the claim of Rs. 1,25,000/- found that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 10,935/- out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 22,870/- since the claimant himself contributed 50% negligence to the accident. This Award is being challenged in this appeal on the ground that there is no material to establish that there was contributory negligence on the part of claimant. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, the claimant died. So, the legal representative of the claimant was impleaded as second appellant by the order of this Court dated 27-8-1998 to prosecute this appeal on behalf of the other claimant. Though on the basis of the judgment in C.P. Kandaswamy v. Mariappa Stores, 1974 Acc CJ 362 : 1974 AIR(Madras) 178) learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, respondent herein states that under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, the cause of action regarding the injury sustained by the claimant would not survive on his death, the judgment rendered in Thailammal v. A. V. Mallayya Pillai, (1980) 2 Mad LJ 266 was brought to the notice by the counsel for the appellant to state that the cause of action would not get lost in respect of the items of the expenses actually incurred. So, in view of the decision referred to above following the earlier decision in C. P. Kandaswamy v. Mariappa Stores, 1974 Acc CJ 362 : 1974 AIR(Madras) 178), I feel that this appeal could be dealt with on the basis of the merits. 4. So, in view of the decision referred to above following the earlier decision in C. P. Kandaswamy v. Mariappa Stores, 1974 Acc CJ 362 : 1974 AIR(Madras) 178), I feel that this appeal could be dealt with on the basis of the merits. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 17-8-87 when he was proceeding at Kajalnayakkanpatti near Annamalai Cotton Mills in the north-south road on his cycle keeping to the left side, the bus bearing TML 5699 driven in a high speed came and dashed against him as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. After taking first aid in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Salem, he was admitted in R.C.R. Nursing Home, where he stayed till 9-9-87 as an inpatient. 5. According to the respondent, the claimant who was coming in the east-west road, suddenly entered into the north-south road from the eastern mud road proceeding to Veerasami Pudur without noticing the bus coming in its direction and the driver of the bus did his best to avert the collision by swerving the vehicle towards left, but the cyclist came and dashed against the bus and therefore, the negligence cannot be attributed to the driver and as such, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. 6. On the side of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A6. On the side of the respondent, the conductor was examined as RW1. The Tribunal though found the negligence on the part of the bus driver, held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant also, since he admitted that he entered into the main road (north-south) from the east-west road and that the accident took place when he crossed the road without noticing the bus coming from north to south. 7. I have gone through the evidence of PW1 and RW1. The finding of the Tribunal is factually incorrect, because P.W.1 never admitted that he crossed the road when the bus came from north to south. According to P.W.1, he entered into the main road and crossed a distance of 200 feet in the said road going on the left side and at that time the bus came and hit against him and he fell down from the cycle and sustained a fracture on the thigh. The sketch, Ex. According to P.W.1, he entered into the main road and crossed a distance of 200 feet in the said road going on the left side and at that time the bus came and hit against him and he fell down from the cycle and sustained a fracture on the thigh. The sketch, Ex. A3 also would support the case of PW1, as it reveals that there is a considerable distance between the corner of the east-west road and the place where the bus was stopped. In view of the above fact there is no difficulty for this Court to come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the bus driver alone and as such, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Consequently, the total amount of compensa-tion as ordered by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 21,870/-. So, the legal representative of the claimant is entitled to get the same. 8. Regarding the expenses incurred, the claims of Rs. 600/- towards damage to the cycle, Rs. 1,000/- towards transport and Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishing were made. Though evidence has been let in through PW1 with reference to this, there is no discussion about this aspect of the evidence by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, Tribunal did not make any reference about these heads at all. Therefore, in my view, the compensation of Rs. 500/- towards damages to cycle, Rs. 500/- towards transport and Rs. 1,500/- towards extra nourishing would be a proper amount and therefore, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for all these three heads, in addition to the Award of Rs. 21,870/-. 9. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.