Judgment :- 1. The Transport Corporation has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,96,500/- awarded by the court below in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein for the death of the husband and father of the claimants herein. 2. According to the claimants, on 05.05.1998 at about 18.00 hours when they were travelling in the bus bearing Registration No. TN 38 H 0461 belonging to the appellant corporation from Sivananda Colony bus stop to go to LIC Bus Stop, near The Hindu Daily office, V.O.C. park, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and applied a sudden brake. In the process, the deceased Sunder Singh was thrown out of the bus and ran over under the wheels. He was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore and subsequently shifted to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. Inspite of treatment, after 27 days from the date of accident, the said Sunder Singh died. According to the claimants, the said Sunder Singh was 40 years at the time of accident, working as a Security Guard in a private company and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, for the death of the deceased, the claim petition was filed claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The transport corporation/appellant herein resisted the claim petition by filing a counter before the Court below. 4. The Court below, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,500/-as compensation for the death of the deceased. Even before the court below, the wife of the deceased died and the claim petition is contested only by the children of the deceased namely respondents 1 and 2 herein. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/transport corporation would contend that the bus belonging to the corporation never involved in the alleged accident, as projected in the claim petition. The appellant/corporation disputed their liability to pay the compensation amount, however, the court below relying on the evidence of PW2, an independent witness, fastened the liability on the transport corporation and therefore he prayed for allowing this appeal. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 would contend that in order to prove the factum of accident, an eye witness was examined as PW2, who had spoken about the accident in categorical terms. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 would contend that in order to prove the factum of accident, an eye witness was examined as PW2, who had spoken about the accident in categorical terms. Further, a first information report was registered only against the driver of the transport corporation. However, the transport corporation has not chosen to examine the driver of the bus as a witness on their side to disprove the accident. Therefore, the court below, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, awarded a meager compensation amount for the death of the bread winner of the family and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard both sides. The insurance company disputes the very accident, as projected in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the bus belonging to the transport corporation was not at all involved in the accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. It is rather an unfortunate claim made by the transport corporation, without even examining the driver of the bus, to show that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. It does not lie on the mouth of the appellant to disprove the claim made by the claimants. Further, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the claimants, an independent witness was examined as PW2 who has spoken about the nature of accident and proved the factum of accident. PW2 also deposed that the bus belonging to the corporation was involved in the accident. Apart from that, the first information report was filed by the Police authorities only as against the driver of the transport corporation, which was also marked as Ex.P1. When the first information report was registered against the driver of the corporation, it is not known as to why the corporation has not chosen to examine the driver to disprove the very accident. It is not open for the corporation, without examining the driver of the vehicle, to dispute the very accident. Therefore, I hold that the court below is right in fastening the liability on the appellant transport corporation and the appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. 8. It is not open for the corporation, without examining the driver of the vehicle, to dispute the very accident. Therefore, I hold that the court below is right in fastening the liability on the appellant transport corporation and the appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. 8. Even though the appellant has not questioned the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the court below awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,500/-for the death of the father of the respondents 1 and 2 herein, who was 46 years at the time of accident. Such a compensation amount awarded by the court below, in my opinion, is very reasonable and fair. In fact, the claimants are entitled for more amount as compensation, but unfortunately, they have not come forward with any independent appeal or cross objection, questioning the quantum of compensation. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the transport corporation is dismissed. No costs. It is stated that the transport corporation had deposited the entire award amount out of which the claimants have also withdrawn 50% of the amount. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest as per the apportionment awarded by the court below.