Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased Dharmaraj, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1212 of 2000, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Dharapuram (subsequently it was taken on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District, in M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003), claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-from the respondents for the death of the said Dharmaraj in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 30.11.1999, at about 04.15 p.m., the first claimant's husband namely Dharmaraj was travelling as a passenger, in the second respondent's Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0095, from Anamalai to Nellukuthiparai and when he was in the process of alighting the bus, the first respondent, who is the driver of the bus, had suddenly moved the bus. As a result, the said Dharmaraj had fallen on the road and sustained injuries and succumbed to it at the hospital after 12 days. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the driver and owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0095. 4. The second respondent Transport Corporation had filed their counter affidavit and resisted the claim of the claimants. They had denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was submitted that the deceased had not travelled as a passenger in their bus. Actually, the driver had driven the said bus bearing registration No.TN38 N0095, from Chemanampathi to Pollachi and before the first respondent stopped the bus at Nellukuthiparai Bus Stop, the passengers shouted at the first respondent to stop the bus and immediately the first respondent had also stopped the bus. The passengers informed him that the deceased suddenly jumped from the moving bus without any caution and sustained injuries. Immediately, the first respondent admitted the injured person in hospital. 5. The passengers informed him that the deceased suddenly jumped from the moving bus without any caution and sustained injuries. Immediately, the first respondent admitted the injured person in hospital. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: i. Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent? or Whether it was caused due to the negligence of the deceased? and ii. What is the quantum of compensation, which the claimants are entitled to get? 6. On the claimants' side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 namely FIR, postmortem report, criminal court judgment, death and legal heir certificate, driving licence and birth certificate.. On the respondents' side, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and no document was marked. 7. P.W.2 eye-witness of the accident had adduced evidence that on 30.11.1999, at about 04.00 p.m., she had boarded the second respondent's Transport Corporation Bus at Maasaniamman Kovil Bus Stop, for purchasing of flowers at Pollachi Market. Further, she had adduced evidence that along with her, other flower vendors namely Mariammal and Latha were also seated in the bus. When the bus was stopped at Anamalai Bus Stop, the deceased boarded the bus and when the bus was stopped at Nellukuthiparai Bus Stop, the deceased was in the process of getting down from the back entrance of the bus and at that time the first respondent had started the bus suddenly. As a result, the deceased was thrown out from the bus. 8. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that when the bus was coming at a distance of 100 feet from the bus stop, the passengers shouted to the first respondent to stop the bus, since the deceased had lost his control and fallen down from the bus. As such, the driver was not responsible for the accident. 9. R.Ws.2 and 3 had spoken on the parallel lines of the evidence of R.W.1 regarding manner of accident. 10. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was her husband and aged about 37 years and he was a driver and also cultivating land. The deceased was admitted at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital on 30.11.1999, as an inpatient and he had expired in spite of medical treatment given. 10. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was her husband and aged about 37 years and he was a driver and also cultivating land. The deceased was admitted at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital on 30.11.1999, as an inpatient and he had expired in spite of medical treatment given. The second and third claimants are minor children of the deceased and the fourth and fifth claimants are the parents of the deceased. 11. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimants, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,19,000/-as compensation to the claimants and directed the second respondent Transport Corporation to pay the said compensation amount, on behalf of the first respondent, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of it's order. The claim in respect of the fifth claimant was dismissed. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the evidence of respondents namely R.Ws.2 and 3 clearly reveals that the deceased himself had jumped from the moving bus and as such the accident had been caused by the negligence of the deceased. Further, the claimants had not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. 14. The above appeal has been filed in the year 2006. Sofar, notice has not been served on the claimants. Under these circumstances, this Court is constrained to pass this Judgment on the basis of the available records. 15. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had decided the negligence and liability in an appropriate manner, after considering the FIR and evidence of the witnesses in favour of the claimants, which is appropriate. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had decided the negligence and liability in an appropriate manner, after considering the FIR and evidence of the witnesses in favour of the claimants, which is appropriate. Regarding quantum of compensation, it is not on the higher side and therefore this Court is inclined to confirm the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District. 16. This Court has already directed the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit 50% of the award amount, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District. 17. Now, this Court directs the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit the balance compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 18. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the major claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 19. This Court directs the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District, to deposit the minors' share amount with proportionate interest thereon, in a nationalized bank, as fixed deposit in the cumulative deposit scheme, till they attain the age of major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor claimants. 20. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.835 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.III), Dharapuram, Erode District, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.