R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the A. P. State Road transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act ) against the award passed in m. O. P. No. 345 of 1998, dated 16. 2. 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, vizianagaram. ( 2 ) THE Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the claimants before the Tribunal below, have filed the said O. P. under section-166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the death of their mother in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 22. 10. 1997. It was their case before the Tribunal below that on 22. 10. 1997, the deceased boarded the bus bearing Registration No. AP-10-Z-3149 in Busaivalasa Village to go to Challapeta and when the bus stopped near pedamanapuram Railway Gate, the deceased got down from the bus along with other passengers and stood in front of the bus because the gate was closed. It was their further case that when the railway gate was opened, the driver of the offending bus without taking care of the passengers drove the same in a negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and as a result, the deceased died on the spot. Hence, the said claim petition was filed by the minor sons of the deceased stating that on account of the sudden and untimely demise of the deceased, they lost their dependency. It was also averred that their mother-deceased was earning Rs. 50/- per day and was contributing major portion of her income to the members of the family. As such, they filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of loss of their dependency and also the expenditure incurred on account of transportation, funeral charges, etc. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal below, the appellant-Corporation has resisted the claim of the claimants by filing counter- affidavit. While generally denying the allegations made by the claimants it was their case before the Tribunal below that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal below, the appellant-Corporation has resisted the claim of the claimants by filing counter- affidavit. While generally denying the allegations made by the claimants it was their case before the Tribunal below that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. It was their case that the deceased along with some other passengers jumped down from the moving bus due to hearing cries mat another train is coming on the track and it will hit the bus. As such, it was their case that there was no negligence on the part,of the driver of the offending bus and ultimately, pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition. ( 4 ) WITH reference to the above said rival contentions, the Tribunal below has framed the following issues for trial:"1. Whether the accident and the death of the deceased-Bangaramma are due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle i. e. , Bus bearing nb. AP-lo-Z-3149 by R. l-driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled " for any compensation, and if so, from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?" ( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal below, on behalf of the claimants, P. Ws. l and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending bus was examined as R. W-1 but no documentary evidence was marked. ( 6 ) WHILE appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal below has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. Though it was pleaded on behalf of the claimants that earnings of the deceased was Rs. 50/- per day, the Tribunal below has assessed the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 35/- per day which comes to annual dependency of Rs. 12,600/- and after deducting l/3rd of it towards personal expenses, it has calculated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs. 8,400/- per annum and applying the relevant multiplier 16 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,34,400/- on account of loss of dependency. Apart from the same, the Tribunal below also awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses incurred on the deceased. ( 7 ) IN this appeal, it is contended by kum. 8,400/- per annum and applying the relevant multiplier 16 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,34,400/- on account of loss of dependency. Apart from the same, the Tribunal below also awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses incurred on the deceased. ( 7 ) IN this appeal, it is contended by kum. B. G. Uma Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, that in this case there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and the deceased died only on account of her own negligence while jumping from the bus on hearing some news from outside to the effect that another train was coming on the track and the same is going to dash the bus. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Jayanthi S. C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, that as the Railway gates were closed, the offending vehicle was stationed, and after the gates were opened, when the deceased was trying to board the bus, the driver of the offending bus without taking due care of her boarding has started the bus and dashed against the deceased. ( 9 ) WITH reference to the above said arguments, it is to be seen that P. W-1 is no other than the guardian of the claimantsminor children of the deceased. But coming to the deposition of P. W-2, who is an eye-witness to the accident, in his chief- examination he has categorically stated that at the time of accident he was waiting for a bus at Manapuram Bus Stop and the offending bus was stopped near Railway gate and several persons including the deceased got down from the bus and she was standing in front of the bus in between the gate and the bus. He further stated that at that stage the bus started and dashed against the deceased causing instantaneous death of the deceased. In rebuttal, though r. W-1-the driver of the offending bus was examined he did not explain how the accident has occurred. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, the tribunal below while appreciating the evidence of P. W-2, who was an eye-witness to the accident, with reference to the testimony of R. W-1, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, the tribunal below while appreciating the evidence of P. W-2, who was an eye-witness to the accident, with reference to the testimony of R. W-1, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. ( 11 ) IT is a common feature that whenever buses are stopped at the Railway gates most of the passengers will get down instead of staying in the bus. When the bus is about to start after opening of the Railway gates, it is the bounded duty of the driver of the bus to take care of the passengers who are travelling in it and then start the bus. But, in the instant case, it is evident from the evidence of P. W-2 coupled with the evidence of R. W-1 that the driver of the. offending bus did not even care to look into whether all the passengers who are travelling in the very same bus have boarded or not and started the bus and dashed against the deceased. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a right conclusion to the effect that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted. ( 12 ) EVEN with regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below having assessed the age of the deceased as 32 years as on the date of accident, which is evident from the post-mortem certificate- ex. A-2, has applied the relevant multiplier 16 and computed the compensation. Therefore, the compensation assessed and awarded is in consonance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In that view of the matter, i am of the considered opinion that the compensation which is awarded by the tribunal below is just and reasonable and is as per the evidence on record. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, this civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits and does not warrant any interference by this Court in the award passed by the tribunal below. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, this civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits and does not warrant any interference by this Court in the award passed by the tribunal below. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.