Being aggrieved with the award of compensation of Rs.1,25,272/-, claimants – wife and daughters of deceased Nachimuthu have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation for the death of Nachimuthu in a road traffic accident on 25.06.1999.

2.Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:-

The deceased was working as Driver in State Transport Corporation. On 25.06.1999 at about 1.00 a.m., the Corporation bus in which he was duty Driver broke down and he was watching the repair done to the bus. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 28 A 8199 which came from Dharmapuri in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus and caused heavy damage to it. Due to the accident, the deceased Nachimuthu sustained fatal injuries and he died on the spot.

3.At the time of accident, deceased was working as driver in State Transport Corporation [for short, STC] and he was getting salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, claimants have filed Petition under Section 166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Opposing the claim, the Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the deceased had stopped the bus in front of the road and only the deceased was responsible for the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company has also disputed the age, salary of the deceased and loss of dependency of the claimants.

4.Before the Tribunal, first claimant examined herself as PW-1. Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. Upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Stating that though the gross salary was Rs.6,841/- and that his net salary was only Rs.2,958/-. Tribunal has taken the salary at Rs.2,958/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal contribution, the Tribunal had taken Rs.2,464/-towards the contribution to the family and calculated the annual loss of dependency at Rs.29,568/- [Rs.2464 x 12]. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years and hence the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 4 and calculated total loss of dependency at Rs.1,18,272/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,275/-.

5.Challenging the quantum of compensation, the learned Counsel for the Appellant claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the take home salary of the deceased was only Rs.2,958/-. It was submitted that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6,841/- at the time of death and that he was entitled to various other benefits such as Bonus, LTA and other allowances, which have not been taken note of by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the claimants further submitted that in any event, the Tribunal ought to have taken the gross salary as monthly income of the deceased and seeks for enhancement of compensation on that score.

6.The learned Counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly taken the Take Home Salary as the monthly income of the deceased. It was further submitted that the claimants would have received all death benefits from the Corporation and the compensation amount awarded is just and reasonable and the same need not be enhanced.

7.In her evidence, PW-1 has stated that her husband was working as driver in STC and that he was getting salary of Rs.6,841/-p.m. Monthly deductions were Rs.3,882.55 and his net salary was Rs.2,9545. The Tribunal appears to have taken the net salary as the monthly income instead of gross salary.

8.The short point falling for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in taking the monthly net salary as the monthly income of the deceased. The connotation of the term "Income" for the determination of "Just Compensation" envisaged under Sec.168 of the M.V.Act is yet another point