Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved against the award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal/Chief Judge of Small causes Court, Chennai in MACTOP.No.1983 of 2004 dated 27.01.2006 whereby the Tribunal has found that the Transport Corporation is negligent for causing the accident and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit as compensation to the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, K.Kumar, who died in the accident that occurred on 27.02.2004. 2. The brief facts are that the deceased K.Kumar was proceeding at L.B.Road, Adyar, in TVS Champ bearing registration No. TN O7 D 2553 towards Sardar Patel Road, and at that time, the driver of the Transport Corporation, driving the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 01 N 2549 rashly and negligently from behind hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased fell down. The rear wheel of the right side of the bus ran over his head and he died on the spot. Regarding this accident, a case was registered in F.I.R. in Cr.No.187 of 2004 in J2 Adyar police station. The deceased was aged about 28 years and was self-employed as Tiffin stall owner and was earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day. 3. The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the daughter, 3rd petitioner is the son and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- from the respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and accordingly, awarded the compensation as stated above. 4. The appellant has not challenged the quantum of the compensation fixed by the tribunal. The appellant / Transport Corporation has questioned the negligence fastened on the driver of the bus by the Tribunal. 5. The eye-witness has been examined as P.W.2 and the appellant's driver of the bus as R.W.1.The investigator appointed on the side of the respondent has been examined as R.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed that he had witnessed the accident on 27.03.2004 at about 10.00 p.m. According to him, the bus was proceeding in L.B.Road, at a considerable speed and dashed against the T.V.S.Champ and caused the accident. P.W.2 has deposed that he had witnessed the accident on 27.03.2004 at about 10.00 p.m. According to him, the bus was proceeding in L.B.Road, at a considerable speed and dashed against the T.V.S.Champ and caused the accident. The interested testimony of the driver of the bus indicated that when the T.V.S.Champ rider attempted to overtake the bus, dashed against a share auto which was coming in the opposite direction and fell in the right side of the bus. His evidence further indicated that he stopped the bus only on hearing the noise of the passengers in the bus. Admittedly FIR was registered against the bus driver and the trial is also pending in the Criminal Court. 6. In Ex.P.1, first information registered on the report given by P.W.2, it is stated that the deceased was riding a two wheeler in L.B. Road, in front of Mahalakshmi Hardwares, the driver of the bus drove the bus with heavy speed and the front right side of the bus, dashed against the two wheeler. As a result, the two wheeler fell down and subsequently, the rear right side wheel of the bus ran over his head causing death. The site plan Ex.P.2 shows that the accident occurred in a straight road and the total breadth of the road is about 16 meters. It appears that the two wheeler has proceeded from south to north in the middle of the road and the bus had also proceeded in the same direction. As noted in the site plan, the front right side i.e., the driver's side hit on the rear side of the motor cycle and subsequently, the rear wheel of the bus ran over him and caused the accident. 7. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, no independent witnesses have been examined on the side of the respondent/corporation and RW1 and RW2 are the interested witnesses. Though R.W.1 has stated that he has given report to the police, no such report is available as per the police records. Therefore, it has to be assumed that the driver has not lodged any report in the police station. 8. On perusal of Ex.R.2, the investigation report, it is seen that the investigator has not examined any independent witnesses near the place of accident. Therefore, it has to be assumed that the driver has not lodged any report in the police station. 8. On perusal of Ex.R.2, the investigation report, it is seen that the investigator has not examined any independent witnesses near the place of accident. After taking into consideration all the above factors and after analysing the evidence in detail, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent failed to establish that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver whereas the claimants have proved the negligence of the bus driver in causing the accident by his rash and negligent driving. 9. In view of the above said reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned award of the Tribunal and the same is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned award in all respects. It is seen from the records that the Appellant Corporation was directed to deposit 50 per cent of the award amount by order dated 21.12.2006 and further 40 per cent of the award amount by order dated 16.03.2007 of this Court. The Appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount with accrued interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, after giving credit to the award amount already deposited by them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share with proportionate interest as apportioned by the Tribunal, after giving credit to the amount already if any withdrawn by them. The share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 shall be invested in any one of the Nationalised Banks, till they attain majority. The 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest from the share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 once in three months directly from the bank for the maintenance of the minor claimants 2 and 3. Consequently, the Miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.