K. SAMPATH, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 327 of 1991 filed by the appellants in C. M.

A. No. 64 of 1996, who are the respondents in C. M. A. No. 272 of 1996, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 for the death of their daughter in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the Thiruvalluvar transport Corporation, which is the appellant in C. M. A. No. 272 of 1996. The claimants want enhancement while the respondent corporation wants to be absolved of liability and in any event the quantum to be reduced.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellants was as follows: on 22. 4. 1990, their daughter Priya, was proceeding from north to south in a scooter with her sister Preethi on the pillion to her house, when an Express Bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing registration No. TCB 9723 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the two-wheeler from behind, as a result of which, the rider priya fell on the right side and was run over by the vehicle, resulting in her death. The pillion rider fell on the left side and sustained injuries. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of the accident. She was a student and a part-time employee earning Rs. 3,250 per month and they were entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000.

( 3 ) THE respondent Corporation resisted the claim contending, inter alia, that the accident was solely due to the careless and reckless act of the scooterist, that she attempted to overtake the bus, lost her control due to negligent act of the pillion rider and smashed against right front side of the bus, and that the bus driver was not at fault. The respondent also contended that the claimants-appellants were not depending on the deceased and they were not entitled to any compensation. The income, age and occupation of the deceased were all disputed. In any event, the compensation claimed was stated to be excessive.

( 4 ) ON the side of the appellants, the appellant No. 2 was examined as PW 1. The sister of the victim, who was the pillion rider, was examined as PW 2. A doctor was examined as PW 3 and one Radhakrishnan, police constable, examined as pw 4. Exhs. P-1 to P-15 were marked on their side. On the side of the transport corporation, only the driver was examined as rw 1 and no documents were marked.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal found that the accident was entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by RW 1 and that the victim was not at all at fault. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the oral evidence of PW 2 pillion rider, pw 4 police constable and the sketch, Exh. P-15.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the transport corporation vehemently contended that the accident could not have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RW 1.

( 7 ) A perusal of the sketch clearly shows that the victim could not have been responsible for the accident at all. The version given by RW 1 that the victim drove the scooter along the left side and finally landed on the right front side of the bus, as pointed out by learned Tribunal, cannot be believed. The conclusion reached by the tribunal that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by RW 1 cannot be faulted. The finding is, therefore, confirmed.

( 8 ) AS regards the quantum, the victim was 18 years old. She was a student and she had also equipped herself in typewriting and computers. She was also a good sports person. She was a very bright student as would be evident from the various exhibits marked in the proceedings. No doubt, the Tribunal did not accept that she was earning any money by doing some part-time work. According to the Tribunal, the salary certificate, Exh. P-4, produced was not properly proved. Be that as it may, the victim had she lived would have definitely come up well in life. She had very supportive well-to-do parents, who would have given her adequate education and ensured an excellent future for her and this would have, in turn