Court can suo motu enhance quantum of compensation.

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.330 of 1996 dated 9.12.1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Principal District Judge, Sivagangai. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

2. On 11.7.1996, at about 10.15 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on Madurai Mandapam National Highways Road on the extreme left hand side of the road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-0329, belonging to the respondent/State Transport Corporation, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Ulaganathan, causing instantaneous death to him. At the time of the accident, the deceased Ulaganathan was working as a supervisor in a Spinning Mill by name, Somasundaram Super Spinning Mill and drawing Rs.3,000/- per mensem towards his salary. The claimants have filed the claim petition claiming Rs.4 lakhs towards compensation.

3. The respondent has filed a counter contending that the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-0329, was driving the bus in a moderate speed following the traffic rules at the time of the accident and since, the deceased had suddenly crossed the road without observing the traffic rules, dashed against the bus and sustained grievous injuries and died and that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0329.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimants and on the side of the respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

5. After going through the oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of the claimants, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-0329 and has awarded a compensation of Rs.83,334/- with 12% interest from the date of petition till the, date of realization.

6. Aggrieved by the award of compensation in M.C.O.P. No.330 of 1996, dated 9.12.1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, the respondent has preferred this appeal.

7. Now, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the award of compensation passed in M.C.O.P.No.330 of 1996, dated 9.12.1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, is liable to be reduced for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.1076 of 1998?

The Point:

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is challenging only the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant would represent that the age of the deceased was 51 years at the time of the accident and at paragraph 6 of the award, the learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier 11 and had taken the average monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and after calculating the annual loss of income as Rs.36,000/-, had multiplied the same with future service of six years and seven months and arrived at the loss of income as Rs.2,37,000/- and subsequently in the same paragraph, the learned Tribunal has calculated the loss of income for four years as Rs.48,000/- and for another five months as Rs.5,000/- and for another eleven years as Rs.2,90,000/- and then after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, has come to the conclusion that the loss of income is Rs.1,93,334/-. It is not correct.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent also agrees that the method adopted by the learned Tribunal for assessing the loss of income is incorrect. PW3 one of the representatives of the Mill in which the deceased hid worked, in his evidence, has deposed that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.2,937/-. In support of this, he has also produced Ex.A7,