Judgment :- 1. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. 2. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the claimants/the respondents herein, mainly on the ground of negligence, this appeal has been presented before this Court. 3. The deceased in this case is one Sivakumar aged about 18 years. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was working as a Clerk in a finance company. On 19.4.91 at about 5.45 P.M., the deceased was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. T.M.L. 8603 belonging to the appellant-Corporation in the Gingee-Tindivanam Road. Near Government Hospital, four persons standing on the left side of the road signalled the bus to stop and the driver of the bus suddenly applied the brake. The deceased, at that time standing near the front door holding the handle, tumbled and fell down on the ground and the front wheel of the bus ran over his body. He was taken to the hospital, but within 15 minutes, he died. 4. The parents of the deceased, the respondents herein, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.I father and P.W. 2 eye-witness were examined and Ex.A1 F.I.R., ExA2 post-mortem certificate and Ex.A3 Transfer Certificate were marked. 5. The appellant-Corporation contested the claim stating that some passengers including the deceased were travelling on the foot board, that the Conductor and the Driver of the bus asked the passengers to come inside the bus, and that when the bus was moving, the deceased having lost the grip fell down and sustained injuries and as such, the negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the bus. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, R.W. 1., the driver, was examined. 6. The Tribunal, after appraisal of the materials placed before it, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, even though the compensation claimed was Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. Mr. Muniratnam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation, seeking to set aside the award would strenuously contend as follows:— “Ex.A1 F.I.R. was given by the deceased himself to the police, wherein he clearly stated about the manner of the accident. He did not attribute any negligence on the part of the driver. 1,00,000/-. 7. Mr. Muniratnam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation, seeking to set aside the award would strenuously contend as follows:— “Ex.A1 F.I.R. was given by the deceased himself to the police, wherein he clearly stated about the manner of the accident. He did not attribute any negligence on the part of the driver. The evidence of P.W. 2 cannot be believed, since it does not corroborate with Ex.A1 F.I.R. The materials available on record would clearly show that the deceased was travelling on the foot board. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also”. 8. Arguing contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit as follows:— “P.W. 2 would clearly state that the deceased was standing near the front door in the moving bus and when the driver suddenly applied brake, out of jerk and since the rusted bar got broken, the deceased was thrown out of the bus and the front wheel of the bus ran over his body. P.W. 2, the eye-witness would state that the deceased did not give any report to the police, as he was unconscious throughout and that therefore, the contents of the F.I.R. alleged to have been given by the deceased to the police ma not be acted upon. Furthermore, the evidence of R.W. 1 would itself show that several persons were standing on the foot board and in spite of the warning, they did not get down from the bus and even then, the bus was started. This would also prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is correct” 9. I have gone through the records in the light of the submissions made on either side. 10. Even at the threshold, I shall mention that the contents of the F.I.R. does not support the case of the claimants. According to the F.I.R., the deceased was travelling on the foot board, as there were lot of passengers inside the bus and then, he lost grip of the handle and fell down near the Government Hospital. 11. 10. Even at the threshold, I shall mention that the contents of the F.I.R. does not support the case of the claimants. According to the F.I.R., the deceased was travelling on the foot board, as there were lot of passengers inside the bus and then, he lost grip of the handle and fell down near the Government Hospital. 11. But, it is noticed from the evidence of P.W. 2 eye-witness that the deceased was standing near the gear-box in the front door and since sudden brake was applied by the driver, there was a jolt and the rusted rod got broken and the deceased fell down from the bus, and thereafter, the front wheel of the bus ran over him. 12. Though the manner of the accident, as projected by P.W. 2, is contrary to the contents of the F.I.R., we cannot reject the evidence of P.W. 2 on the ground alone. We have necessarily to see the facts of other materials produced by the appellant-Corporation. 13. According to the counter filed by the appellant-Corporation, the deceased along with some other passengers was travelling on the foot board, and the Conductor and Driver of the bus warned the passengers to come inside the bus, but they did not heed to their warning and the deceased lost the grip of the handle and fell down from the bus. 14. R.W.I stated in his evidence that totally 150 passengers were travelling in the bus on that day, that several persons were standing and hanging in the foot board and that they were asked to come inside the bus. However, they did not give response to the request and thereafter, the Conductor gave a whistle and the bus was moving. Immediately, there was a hue and cry and the driver stopped the bus and saw the deceased was lying on the ground. He was told that the deceased fell down from the bus, since he hlost his grip of the handle. 15. From his evidence, it is clear that several passengers were standing on the foot boar and despite warning, they did not either get down from the bus or come inside the bus. Despite that, the Conductor gave the whistle and the Driver started the bus. 16. According to P.W. 2, there was a sudden brake due to which the deceased fell down. Despite that, the Conductor gave the whistle and the Driver started the bus. 16. According to P.W. 2, there was a sudden brake due to which the deceased fell down. According to R.W. 1., the deceased was standing on the foot board and he lost his grip and fell down. 17. R.W.I would state that the deceased was taken to the hospital and he was sent out by the Doctor, as there was no injury on him. This statement of R.W.I cannot be believe, since the post-mortem certificate would show that the deceased die due to crush injuries. 18. Though P.W. 2. would state that the deceased was not travelling on the foot board, whereas he was standing and travelling near the great-box, we need not act on that evidence, in view of the fact that the evidence of R.W. 1. and the counter which would corroborate the contents of the F.I.R. that the deceased was travelling on the foot board. 19. But, R.W. 1 would admit that several persons including the deceased were standing on the foot board and that they warned them not to travel on the foot board, but they had not given any response to the warning. 20. In the light of the said evidence, the statement of R.W. 1 in the cross-examination, in this context, is quite relevant, which is as follows:— Tamil 21. Even accepting the case of R.W. 1 that the deceased was travelling on the foot board is true, it is clear that the driver, on getting the whistle from the Conductor, started the bus and thereafter, the accident had taken place. 22. In other words, even if the deceased had travelled on the foot board of the bus, he cannot be taken to have contributed to the accident by his negligence, since even according to R.W. 1., several persons were standing on the foot board. In the light of these materials, it is clear that the deceased fell down not because of the foot board travel, but because of the act of the driver of having applied the brake suddenly, as started by P.W. 2. 23. In the light of these materials, it is clear that the deceased fell down not because of the foot board travel, but because of the act of the driver of having applied the brake suddenly, as started by P.W. 2. 23. The Division bench of this Court, in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Gowri (1981) II MLJ 181 = 94 L.W. 93, while referring about the foot board travelling, would observe as follows:— “Even if the deceased had travelled on the foot board of the bus; he cannot be taken to have contributed to the accident by his negligence. The deceased can be taken to have contributed to the accident by his negligence only if the accident had occurred as a result of his foot board travel. On the admitted facts of this case, we are not inclined to hold that by merely standing on the foot board, the deceased had contributed to the accident by his negligence. Even though the deceased had travelled by standing on the foot board, the accident could have been averted, if the driver had driven the bus without rashness or negligence.” 24. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the case of the claimants regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the bus can be fully accepted and that it can be safely concluded that the finding of the Tribunal is valid and is to be confirmed. 25. As regards quantum, since there is no serious challenge, we need not go into this aspect. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.