Judgment : 1. The applicants have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.5104 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Court of Small Causes), Chennai, stating that when the 1st claimant's son aged about 13 years was riding his cycle on the Dr. Besant Road on 05.04.2000, the respondent's bus coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, dashed against him. As a result, the 1st claimant's son had died due to injuries sustained. 2. The Transport Corporation had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the driver of the bus was proceeding on the Dr. Besant Road, from west to east direction and at that point of time, the (deceased) cyclist, coming in the opposite direction had dashed against the rear side of the bus. As the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. The entire negligence lies on the cyclist. 3. On verifying the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely : (1) Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus? And (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? 4. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses have been examined and 5 documents were marked, namely: Ex.P1-Legal heir certificate; Ex.P2-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P3-Copy of plan; Ex.P4-Copy of charge sheet; Ex.P5-Copy of postmortem certificate. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. PW1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was her son aged about 13 years and he was selling baloons and kites on the Marina Beach and was earning Rs.75/- per day. PW1 further stated that the driver of the bus had committed the said accident by his negligent driving. PW2, the eyewitness had adduced evidence that the driver of the bus had been rash and negligent in his driving and caused the accident. 5. PW3, Head Constable had adduced evidence that he had registered a Criminal case against the driver of the bus and that subsequently charge sheet had been filed against him. 6. RW1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was riding his cycle behind the bus and dashed against the rear side of the bus. 5. PW3, Head Constable had adduced evidence that he had registered a Criminal case against the driver of the bus and that subsequently charge sheet had been filed against him. 6. RW1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was riding his cycle behind the bus and dashed against the rear side of the bus. After considering the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinising the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had apportioned 30% of liability on the side of deceased and 70% on the side of the driver of the bus and granted compensation of a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 7. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the above appeal and have sought additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-with interest. The highly competent counsel vehemently argued that the Tribunal had fixed 30% liability on the side of the deceased in an arbitrary manner since the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus, subsequently, the charge sheet has also been levelled against him. Further, from the tyre marks indicated in the rough sketch, it is seen that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus and the same had not been considered by the Tribunal since it is a vital document to determine the negligence aspect. Further, the deceased was a earning person, even though he was a minor and therefore the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation under the head of loss of earning. The very competent counsel further submits that PW2 is the eyewitness and he had revealed the mode of accident. PW3, the Police Constable, who is attached the Traffic Investigation Wing had proceeded with the Criminal case against the driver of the bus under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. As such, the contributory negligence which had been attributed to the deceased is not relevant in the instant case. 8. The competent counsel for the Transport Corporation vehemently argued that the deceased had ridden his bicycle in the opposite direction on the Dr. Besant Road and he came onto the middle of the road and invited the said accident. The deceased was a non-earning member and therefore the Tribunal had assessed the compensation as a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which is appropriate. After deducting contributory negligence, the sum of Rs.1,05,000/- offered as compensation is appropriate. Besant Road and he came onto the middle of the road and invited the said accident. The deceased was a non-earning member and therefore the Tribunal had assessed the compensation as a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which is appropriate. After deducting contributory negligence, the sum of Rs.1,05,000/- offered as compensation is appropriate. The highly competent counsel further submits that even though a Criminal case had been levelled against the driver of the bus, he was not convicted for the said crime. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on scrutinising the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the Criminal case has been registered against the driver of the offending bus. Due to his negligent driving, the fatal accident had happened. Further, the deceased's age was 13 and therefore the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-is a meagre amount to the sorrowful parents of the deceased. They have claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation against the Transport Corporation. This amount is reasonable, considering the dependency factor and that the deceased was an earning person, as per evidence of PW1. Hence, this Court fastens the entire negligence on the driver of the bus. As such, the Transport Corporation is liable to pay the entire compensation to the claimants. Therefore, this Court directs the State Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. This Court has granted under the following heads namely loss of earning, loss of love and affection, transport and funeral expenses, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-. After subtracting the initial compensation of a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-, this Court grants additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-to the claimants. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 10. This Court directs the respondent herein to execute this Court's order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by way of depositing the award before the trial Court. 10. This Court directs the respondent herein to execute this Court's order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by way of depositing the award before the trial Court. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, as per ratio fixed by the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.5104 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / (Chief Court of Small Causes) of Madras, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the above appeal is allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.5104 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / (Chief Court of Small Causes) of Madras, dated 18.10.2004, is modified. No costs.