1. When the appeal came up for admission, by consent, the main appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2009 made in M.C.O.P. No.536 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Tirupathur at Vellore District.

3. The background facts in a nutshell, are, as follows:-

On 24.10.2006, at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased Velayutham was travelling in a bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-1675 from Vadapudhupatti to Madhanur and when the deceased was about to alight at Madhanur, the driver of the bus, without observing the same, moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner. In that impact, the deceased was thrown out in the bus and he sustained fatal injuries and later he died at Ambur Hospital despite intensive treatment. The claimants are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Who is responsible for the accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation as claimed in the petition?

3. To what relief the petitioners are entitled to?"

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 bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition and till the date of realisation. The details of the same are as under:-

Loss of income to the family Rs.3,84,000/-

Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/-

Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-

Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-

------------------

Total... Rs. 4,29,000/-

-----------------

Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Sudharsan was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Gangatharan, who is an eye witness to the accident. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Post mortem Certificate. Ex.P.3 is the copy of the Charge sheet. Ex.P.4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P.5 is the Legal heir certificate of one Damodharan. Ex.P.6 is the Salary certificate of Damodharan. 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 bus. 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 compensation and held as follows:-

"7. Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of Courts Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nan