Judgment :- The Transport Corporation that figured as the respondent before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.323/96 is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed a claim petition under Section 166(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant/respondent claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the alleged injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 21.02.1994 at about 7.30 a.m. at Seranoor Village near Gingee. 2. According to the petition averments while he was waiting for the bus at the bus stop, the appellants bus bearing registration No.TN-31 N-0042 having Route No.7 came there at high speed driven by its driver with rashness and negligence as a result of which the same dashed against the respondent/petitioner. According to the further averments made in the petition, his legs were caught under the left side back wheel of the said bus due to which he sustained grievous injuries leading to permanent disability which was assessed by a qualified medical officer at 70%. Based on the said contentions, the respondent/petitioner had claimed the above said amount as compensation from the appellant/respondent. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant/ respondent by putting in a counter statement denying the petition averments regarding the manner in which the accident took place, the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the reasonableness of the amount claimed as compensation. It was contended by the appellant/ respondent in its counter statement that the said bus, after dropping the passengers bound to alight at the said bus stop, started moving and thereafter the petitioner in an attempt to get into the moving bus slipped and fell down due to his own negligence. The appellant/respondent also contended that it was due to the negligence of the respondent/petitioner the unfortunate accident took place and hence the respondent/petitioner should not be held entitled to the amount claimed by him as compensation. 4. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues conducted enquiry in which the respondent herein/ petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr. Ramanujam was examined as P.W.2. Nine documents were marked on the side of the respondent/petitioner as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the side of the appellant herein/respondent, the driver of the above said bus by name Archunan was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. 5. Ramanujam was examined as P.W.2. Nine documents were marked on the side of the respondent/petitioner as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the side of the appellant herein/respondent, the driver of the above said bus by name Archunan was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. 5. The Tribunal considered evidence, both oral and documentary, brought before it in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deriver of the bus belonging to the appellant/respondent. It accepted the estimation of disability made by P.W.2 and held that the petitioner suffered 70% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the above said accident. However, the Tribunal chose to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation without giving any split up particulars and directed the appellant herein/respondent to pay the said amount with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization together with proportionate costs. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2001, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come forward with this appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of appeal. 7. This court heard the submissions made by Mr. G. Muniratnam on behalf of the appellant and Mr. J. Mani on behalf of the respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. 8. On the question of negligence as well as the question of reasonableness of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation, the appellant transport corporation, which figured as the respondent before the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal. There is no dispute regarding the fact that an accident took place on 21.02.1994 at about 7.30 a.m. at Seranoor village near Gingee involving the bus belonging to the respondent and bearing Registration No.TN-31 N-0042 and that in the said accident, the respondent herein/petitioner sustained injuries for which alone he had made a claim before the Tribunal. However, the contention of the respondent herein/petitioner that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle was stoutly denied by the appellant/respondent in its counter. .9. However, the contention of the respondent herein/petitioner that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle was stoutly denied by the appellant/respondent in its counter. .9. In order to substantiate his contention that the driver of the bus was at fault, the only evidence adduced on the side of the respondent/petitioner is the parole evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner himself and Ex.A1 copy of the First Information Report. Though the recitals found in Ex.A1 corresponds to the testimony of P.W.1 in his chief examination, the answers elicited from him in the cross-examination will go to show that the story propounded by the respondent/petitioner regarding the manner in which the accident took place could not be believed. According to the evidence of P.W.1 in the chief examination, while he was standing at the bus stop, the above said bus bearing Registration No.TN-31 N-0042 came at a high speed and dashed against him. However, during cross-examination, P.W.1 has candidly admitted that the said bus stopped at the bus stop and several passengers alighted from the same. If it is so, the contention of the petitioner that the bus came at a high speed and dashed against him while he was standing at the bus stop has to be rejected as untenable. 10. On the other hand, the stand taken by the appellant/respondent in its counter statement is once again reflected in the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. According to his evidence, the said bus stopped at the bus stop, allowed the passengers to alight and the other passengers to get into the bus, thereafter, the bus started moving from the said bus stop and then the respondent/petitioner, in an attempt to get into the moving bus without the knowledge of either the conductor or driver, slipped and fell down and sustained injuries. The story propounded by the appellant/respondent is more probable than the one propounded by the respondent/petitioner in the light of the evidence discussed above. .11. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident took place solely due to negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle belonging to the appellant/respondent. .11. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident took place solely due to negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle belonging to the appellant/respondent. It is further held that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the respondent/petitioner in trying to get into a moving bus without the knowledge of either the conductor or the driver. In view of the finding that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the respondent/petitioner and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the respondent/petitioner shall not be entitled to recover compensation from the appellant/respondent based on the theory of fault. However, as it has been clearly proved by the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.8 and A.9, namely the disability certificate and the X-Ray, this court is of the view that the petitioner has sustained injuries which lead to permanent disability. The assessment of disability made by P.W.2 at 70% has not been properly dislodged by adducing contra evidence. Even then, since this court has held that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the respondent/petitioner himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant/transport corporation, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation under the "no fault" liability clause alone under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In such an event, as per the amended Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- alone as compensation. 12. However, the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent bringing to the notice of this court that the entire award amount as per the award passed by the Tribunal was deposited by the appellant to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.323/96 and by order of court, the respondent/petitioner was allowed to withdraw 50% of the said amount without furnishing any security, submit that by consent the award may be modified by reducing the compensation to 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 13. 13. In view of the said submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side, this court comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice shall be met by reducing the compensation to 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation to Rs.75,000/- from Rs.1,50,000/-. Admittedly, the respondent/petitioner has already withdrawn the above said 50% together with interest and hence the appellant/transport corporation is permitted to withdraw the entire balance amount. There shall be no order as to costs.