Judgment :- (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Sivagangai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2013 dated 04.09.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /District Judge, Sivagangai. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the petitioners 1 to 5 in the claim petition. The appellant has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2013, claiming compensation for the death of one Saravanan in a road accident that took place on 04.09.2014. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2013 is as follows: On 07.12.2011, when the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-63-J-4864 along with Thiruppathur – Sivagangai main road he was dashed by a Government bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0942 and he died on spot. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and he was working as a driver and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. The brief substance of the counter filed by the appellant/respondent is as follows: The driver of the Government bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0942 was driven by the driver in a normal speed observing all the road rules. The deceased drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bus and caused injuries. The deceased is liable for contributory negligence. 5. After trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation to be paid to the respondents. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The complaint was lodged by the wife of the deceased. The FIR was marked as Ex.P1. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The complaint was lodged by the wife of the deceased. The FIR was marked as Ex.P1. In the complaint, the wife of the deceased has stated that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased and that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. The trial Court failed to consider this aspect and fixed the liability wrongly upon the bus driver. The rough sketch and observation mahazer were not marked on the side of the appellant and atleast contributory negligence has to be fixed on the deceased. The deceased was not having driving licence at the time of accident. 7. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the wife of the deceased is not an eye witness. In the complaint, it is clearly stated that the wife of the deceased is only a hearsay witness. The chargesheet was filed only against the bus driver. Mere filing of FIR is not sufficient enough to decide the liability in the MCOP case. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and fixed the liability against the bus driver. There is no evidence that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The deceased was not the accused in the criminal case. The Tribunal has given findings that the deceased was having valid licence at the time of accident. There was no documents or oral evidence on the side of the appellant to prove that the deceased was not having valid driving licence. 8. It is seen that the complaint was lodged by the wife of the deceased. But the wife of the deceased was not an eye witness. After investigation, the police has filed the chargesheet only against the bus driver. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was not having driving licence at the time of accident. The appellant has not taken any steps to file the observation mahazer or the rough sketch before this Court. 9. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 10. The appellant has not taken any steps to file the observation mahazer or the rough sketch before this Court. 9. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed the amount to be reduced. 11. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that only a meagre amount was fixed as compensation, the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. He worked as a driver and was earning Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month. The Tribunal has fixed only notional income and prayed the compensation to be enhanced. 12. It is seen that the respondents have not filed any documents to prove the monthly income of the deceased. Hence, the compensation fixed by the Tribunal under various heads is reasonable. 13. In the above circumstances, there is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2013 dated 04.09.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /District Judge, Sivagangai. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.