Judgment :- The son of the deceased, in a road accident, challenges the dismissal of his claim petition. 2. On 9.11.2001, Arumugam was knocked down by the State Transport Corporation bus. His son claimed compensation. The Tribunal relying on the evidence of the bus driver/R.W.1 concluded that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased and thus, dismissed the claim petition. Thus, the son appealed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in proper perspective. Further, the Tribunal heavily relied on some news item in a Daily and the refer charge sheet of the Police. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the deceased was a Coolie and the appellant was depended upon him for his living. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the deceased invited the accident by voluntarily crossing the road. The appellant is more than 40 years old. The deceased was 80 years old. Thus, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the appellant's story of dependency. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal. 6. It is not in dispute that on 09.11.2001, at about 4.30 p.m., the State Transport Corporation bus was involved in this road accident. At that time, R.W.1 drove the bus. The Tribunal heavily relied on Ex.P7 Malai Malar Daily and Ex.R1 Final Report of the Police. 7. Ex.P.7 is a news item came in the Daily 'Malai Malar' to the effect that in the accident, deceased Arumugam died due to his own negligence. The information in the news item is hearsay. It was not subjected to cross-examination. It is collected/written behind the back of the appellant. It is purely an hearsay matter. It cannot be legal evidence. 8. Police conducts investigation. Concludes it by positive report, namely, charge sheet. Also conclude it by a negative report, namely, refer charge sheet. They refer the case as 'mistake of fact', 'mistake of law' and 'accidental fire'. A Court could not and should not simply substitute its conclusion, by the conclusion of the police in their Final Report (Charge sheet). The Tribunal must render its (judicial) decision based on the legal evidence adduced before it. 9. Ex.R1 is refer charge sheet of the police. A Court could not and should not simply substitute its conclusion, by the conclusion of the police in their Final Report (Charge sheet). The Tribunal must render its (judicial) decision based on the legal evidence adduced before it. 9. Ex.R1 is refer charge sheet of the police. Ex.R.1 refers the case as a 'mistake of fact', and the Tribunal simply repeated the observation of the police in the final report that the deceased was old and blind. Merely because a person is aged, we cannot say that he has no mental faculty. In this case, after two days of the accident, R.W.1 after thought over the matter lodged the complaint to suit his convenience. 10. P.W.2 Govindasamy has been examined as an eye-witness. He had stated that at the time of accident, the bus came driven in a rash and negligent manner. Of course, he has not lodged the complaint. There may be many reasons for not filing the complaint. That alone is not sufficient to discredit him. The cross-examination of R.W.1, revealed that he had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the reply of R.W.1, in his cross-examination, shows that at the time of accident, R.W.1 came driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Thus, we differ with the view of the Tribunal. 11. The appellant was 40 years old. His father is the deceased. In the Post-Mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased is given as 60. However, in Ex.P8 Ration Card, his age has been mentioned as 78. In the facts and circumstances, we prefer the age mentioned in Ex.P8. In the facts and circumstances, it is hardly believable that the deceased earned as a Coolie and the appellant was depended upon him for his sustenance. 12. But, at the same time, we cannot say that by the death of his father, the appellant has not suffered anything. By his death, the appellant lost his love and affection and matured guidance. For loss of love and affection, he is granted Rs.20,000/-. Towards transportation charges, he is granted Rs.5,000/-. For cremation expenses, he is granted Rs.8,000/-. For loss of estate of the deceased, he is granted Rs.10,000/-. For loss of property and clothes, he is granted Rs.4,000/-. The accident took place on 09.11.2001. For loss of love and affection, he is granted Rs.20,000/-. Towards transportation charges, he is granted Rs.5,000/-. For cremation expenses, he is granted Rs.8,000/-. For loss of estate of the deceased, he is granted Rs.10,000/-. For loss of property and clothes, he is granted Rs.4,000/-. The accident took place on 09.11.2001. In the hospital, the deceased battled for his life till 18.11.2001 and died. Towards medical expenses, he is granted Rs.10,000/-. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.57,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. The respondent shall deposit the entire amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant shall be paid the entire amount. No costs.