JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral).: - The appeals are by the State Transport Corporation on the ground that the finding of negligence attributed to the driver of the bus in a collision with the motor cycle where all the persons travelling in the motor cycle had died was not properly rendered. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the occupants of the motor cycle had violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by using the vehicle for carrying three persons where as the carrying capacity was only two. The other contention was that the accident had taken place at the time when the Motor cyclist was attempting to over take yet another bus and had come to the wrong side and dashed against the Corporation bus. 2. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence found through the evidence of PW-3 Babu Ram that the Transport Corporation bus was trying to over take yet another vehicle and it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. Counsel for the appellant points out from the evidence of PW-3 himself that there were nearly 50-60 persons who had come to the spot immediately after the occurrence and none of the others had been examined. PW-3 himself was a procured witness. In a case where the impact of the collision had been such as to kill all the three persons and when there was an evidence of a person who was an eye witness to the accident, I will have no reason to differ with the finding of the Tribunal. Even, the contention that all the three deceased persons were violating the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore there could not be a lawful claim, cannot be an argument so long as there is no finding entered that the accident itself took place only account of such violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. If there was a finding on the basis of the version from an eye witness that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that it was such rash driving that caused the accident, it would be irrelevant that there was any violation of the provisions of the Act by the persons travelling the Motor cycle, I will not think that it could be a ground for disallowing the claim petitions. 3. 3. The Tribunal has considered the issue of negligence on the basis of testimony available before the Court and there is no reason to discard the same. Even as regards the quantum learned counsel states that all the three persons were unmarried and there had been no evidence placed with reference to the income. The awards have been for Rs.2,22,800/- in two cases and Rs.1,43,600/- in another case. The awards are modest and there have been decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowing for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- even for death of a child. The awards have been passed only in the year 2010 and would not require any interference in appeal. The awards are confirmed and appeals are dismissed. --------------