Today, the matter comes up for admission. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Transport Corporation against the award of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only) for the death of one Karuppaiah.

.2. Thefacts of the case are as follows:

.The deceased Karuppaiah was working as a mason and doing building contract works earning about Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) per month. On 18.08.2007, when the deceased was driving his TVS Star bike, the Transport Corporation vehicle driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor bike from the opposite side and due to that, Karuppaiah was thrown out and died on the spot.

3. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only) as compensation. The claim petition was contested by the Corporation. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1. to P.8. were marked. On the side of the appellant, only the conductor of the appellant Corporation was examined as R.W.1.

4. On appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and Exhibits, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the Corporation was alone responsible for the accident and fixed the liability on the driver of the Corporation.

5. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,500/-(Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) as monthly income and deducted one-third towards personal expenses and after taking multiplier 17, arrived at a sum of Rs.6,12,000/-(Rupees six lakhs and twelve thousand only) towards loss of dependency. However, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only) based on the claim petition, in which a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only) alone was sought for.

6. Aggrieved by the award of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only), the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Corporation. Mr. Royce Immanuel, attacked the award contending that, in the absence of any proof for monthly income, the Tribunal should not have fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and arrived at the loss of income. Secondly, he also questioned the negligence fixed on the appellants driver.

.7. It is seen from the record that P.W.2, pillion rider of the motor cycle gave police complaint about the accident, categorically deposed that the accident occurred because of the negligent driving of the appellant bus. P.W.2 was the eyewitness to the accident. R.W.1 was the conductor of the bus; he could not have seen the accident. Appellant did not examine the driver of the bus. The complaint was registered against the appellants driver. If there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, definitely there would have been complaint from the appellants driver or owner against the rider of the motor cycle. There was no such complaint. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the appellants driver based on evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.4. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard, is confirmed.

8. Regarding quantum, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-as against the claim of Rs.10,000/-. The claim of the respondents was that the deceased was earning as Mason at Rs.10,000/-. P.W.3 spoke about the avocation of the deceased as Mason and the same was proved by Ex.P.5. However, the Tribunal calculated the daily wages at Rs.150/- and arrived at Rs.4,500/-towards monthly income. Since the age of the deceased was 35, the multiplier 17 was adopted. After deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, Rs.3,000/-was taken as loss of income and Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.6,12,000/-would be the loss of dependency. Since the claim was made for Rs.6,00,000/- only, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,00,000/-.

9. It has been decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, the Tribunal can award more compensation than the amount claimed and it has been decided in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and