The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for assessing compensation in cases of death, including the multiplier method and factors to be considered, and the modification of the compensation based on the age of the deceased and the claimant, and other relevant factors.

The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the award dated 02.04.2002 made in MCOP No.991 of 1996 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The deceased-Rajendran met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 210. 1994 at about 7.30 p.m. The bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TCB 1996 route No.78-B was stopped at Aarnadkadu but stop on Thoovapothi Road, Aanaikatty. When the deceased tried to get into the said bus through front entrance, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the deceased lost his balance and fell down and the left rear wheel ran over on his head and died on the spot. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. She claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation has resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation or not?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any claim?

If so, how much?"

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:-

Loss of income Rs.2,04,000/-

Total ... Rs.2,04,000/- ------------------

Though the award amount was Rs.2,04,000/-, considering the fact that the claimant claimed only Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,00,000/-. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the age of the deceased while adopting the multiplier and the correct age that should be taken is the mother of the deceased and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 and P8 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, RW.1-Nagarajan, who is the driver of the bus, was examined and Ex.R1-copy of the judgment was marked. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. PW2 is an eye witness to the occurrence. PW3 is the employer of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the post mortem certificate. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P5 is the charge sheet. Exs.P6 is the death certificate. Ex.P7 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.

6. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compen