The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and compensation in a motor accident case under Sec.166 M.V.Act, considering factors such as rash and negligent driving, loss of dependency, future prospects, and assessment of permanent disability.

Being aggrieved with the award of compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- for the death of Chinnadurai [M.C.O.P.No.168/1997] and Rs.1,00,000/- of the personal injuries sustained by the claimant Amsaveni [M.C.O.P.No.183/1997], State Transport Corporation has preferred these appeals.

2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows :- On 210. 1996 the deceased Chinnadurai was driving bike from Samarayapatti to Udumalpet with his wife as pillion rider. When he was nearing S.V.Puram bus stop, he overtook STC bus bearing Registration No.TCB 1411. At that time, the said STC bus driver suddenly turned the bus to the right side in a negligent manner without sounding horn and dashed against the bike driven by the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased and his wife were knocked down and the back wheel of the bus run over the deceased and Chinnadurai died on the spot. Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.183/1997 – Amsaveni wife of deceased sustained grievous injuries on her head and legs. The deceased was working as Head Constable at Udumalpet Police Station at the time of accident and he was earning salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, wife and children of Chinnadurai have filed Petition under Sec.166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. For the injuries sustained by her, Amsaveni – wife of deceased, filed Petition under Sec.166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for he injuries sustained by her.

4. Opposing the claims, STC has filed counter stating that the driver stopped the bus at Vaikalpalam Bus Stop for alighting the passengers and then the bus driver started the bus at a slow speed. When the bus was nearing S.V.Puram stop, the bike, which tried to overtake the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the bus and the rider of the motorcycle and pillion rider fell down in the front side and right side wheel ran over the motorcycle. Rider of the motorcycle cycle died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. According to the STC, only the deceased was rash and negligent in driving the motor cycle and the accident was due to his negligence and therefore, STC is not liable to pay any compensation. STC has also disputed the age and income of the deceased and loss of dependency of the claimants as well as the injured claimant and loss of dependency, percentage of disability.

5. First claimant was examined twice as PW-1 and PW-2. Dr.Prakash was examined as PW-3. Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On the side of respondents, the driver was examined as RW-1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and observing that the evidence of PW-1 is acceptable, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and held STC liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Taking the monthly income of the deceased Chinnadurai as Rs.3,000/-, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenses and fixed the monthly contribution as Rs.2,000/-. Applying multiplier 13, Tribunal has calculated loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. Adding conventional damages, i.e. Rs.3,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for loss of consortium, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/-.

6. Based upon percentage of disability assessed by PW-3, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the fracture injury sustained by the claimant on her right leg.

7. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the Appellant/ STC has submitted that only the deceased had overtaken the STC bus and the accident was due to the lack of care on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and while so, the Tribunal erred in finding that the bus driver was responsible for the accident.

8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the deceased was aged 48 years and by applying multiplier 13, the Tribunal appears to have