JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 19.3.2003 made in MCOP. No. 1478 of 2001 by the learned II Additional District Judge (MACT) Erode, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants/the Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the husband and son of the deceased Mariammal, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 6.8.2001. 2. The facts are that on 6.8.2001, while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the TVS Motorcycle bearing No. TN-33-K-5487 ridden by one Rangasamy from East to West direction on the left side of the road, the bus belonging to the Appellant Corporation hit against the right handle bar of the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. She was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Erode, where she was declared as dead. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs before the Tribunal, contending that the bus was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and was responsible for the accident. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the Appellant Transport Corporation by filing a counter, wherein it is stated that when the bus was proceeding on Mettupalayam Erode Road, near Pallipalayam, it was stopped due to traffic jam. At that time, a tractor bearing Reg. No. TN-G-3226 came from behind the bus and dashed against the bus and caused damages to the bus. When the officials of the Transport Corporation were inspecting the damages, the rider of the motorcycle carrying two persons came, in the opposite direction ridden in a reckless speed came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the stationary bus and thereby, voluntarily invited the accident and contributed to the accident. 4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that that the entire negligence was on the part of the bus driver and so holding, awarded compensation as stated above to the claimants. 5. The Appellant has challenged the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence fastened on the bus driver. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no dispute by the Appellant. 6. 5. The Appellant has challenged the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence fastened on the bus driver. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no dispute by the Appellant. 6. A criminal case has been registered in Cr. No. 514 of 2001 immediately after the accident on the complaint given by the rider of the motorcycle, namely, Rangasamy. It is specifically averred in the First Information Report that when he was riding the motorcycle with the deceased as a pillion rider and proceeding on the Eastern side of the road, the bus was driven in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and in the process of overtaking a lorry, the bus came to the wrong side and hit the right handle bar of the motorcycle, as a result of which, the pillion rider was thrown on the road causing grievous head injury to her and she succumbed to those injuries while being taken to the Hospital. It is further averred that while the bus overtook the lorry, the lorry had hit behind the bus and the windscreen of the bus was broken. The first informant, who was examined himself as P.W.2, has deposed in consonance with the averments made in the First Information Report given by him. The driver, who was examined as RW.1, has given a new theory in his evidence that when the motorcycle dashed against the bus, the pillion rider fell on a stone and sustained head injury, which is not the case of the Appellant either raised in the counter or so elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.2. The rough plan Exhibit P-2 shows the place of the accident on the extreme Southern side. Admittedly, the two wheeler was coming from East to West on the Southern side of the road and therefore, it is evident that the bus had crossed the middle portion of the road and dashed against the two wheeler. Therefore, considering the entire evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the bus driver and I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the said findings arrived at by the Tribunal. There are no merits in this appeal and deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned award. There are no merits in this appeal and deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned award. A memo has been filed by the 2nd Respondent that the 1st Respondent died on 9.4.2004, leaving behind the 2nd Respondent as his legal representative, who is already on record. It appears that 50 per cent of the award amount has already been withdrawn by the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance award amount with interest. No costs. Appeal dismissed.