The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, considering factors such as loss of income, future prospects, and liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/respondents against the Award and Decree, dated 14.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.1283 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,31,000/-with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the above said award, the appellant/respondent has preferred the above appeal to set aside the order.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 02.05.2005, the deceased and his friend, namely Soban Babu were proceeding in his bike bearing registration No.TN29 V9702, with Soban Babu as pillion rider. It was driven by the deceased very slowly and carefully observing all the rules of the road. At about 21.45 hrs, while proceeding towards Hosur, on the Krishnagiri to Hosur National Highway Road and nearing J.P.Petrol Bunk, the TNSTC Bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1015, belonging to the respondent, driven by its driver behind the said bike, in a rash and negligent manner, lost his control and dashed behind the said bike. Due to the impact, the deceased and the said Soban Babu were thrown out from the bike, the said Soban Babu died on the spot and the deceased Siva @ Sivakumar sustained fatal injuries and immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and after first aid, he was taken to High Institution Hospital at Bangalore. But, due to the fatal injuries, the deceased Sivakumar died on the way to the Bangalore Hospital. Postmortem has conducted at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri on 03.05.2005. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said TNSTC Bus. The Krishnagiri Taluk Police has registered the case against the driver of the bus in Crime No.291/2005, under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C.

4. Due to the accident and sudden death of the deceased ie. Sivakumar, the petitioners lost their only son and the breadwinner of the family. The petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

5. The deceased was a hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was aged only 27 years at the time of the death. At the time of the accident, he was an overall Supervisor-cum-Manager (in production, maintenance, sales and marketing) and was earning not less than Rs.6,000/-per month. The deceased has completed ITI Fitter Course and has a Conductor Licence. In future, he might get a Government job and look after the petitioners.

6. Therefore, the respondent as Owner-cum-Manager of the bus is solely liable to pay the said compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. The respondent in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the Corporation Bus driver had driven the bus very slowly and carefully and had observed all the rules of the road. While, the bus was nearing J.Petrol Bunk on the Krishnagiri to Hosur NH Road, the rider of the TVS Suzuki came on the opposite direction the wrong route, in high speed and came in front of the respondents bus. On seeing the said bike, coming on the wrong route from the opposite direction, the driver of the bus applied brakes to avert an accident, but, before it stopped, the rider of the bike came in contact with the bus and so the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of rider of the said bike. Further, the non-inclusion of necessary parties, namely, Owner and Insurance Company of the said bike renders the claim not maintainable. The age, income and occupation of the deceased are also not admitted. The petitioners claim of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation is high and excessive. The respondent has therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely:

.(i) Whether the accident