The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a fair and reasonable compensation based on accepted legal standards, as emphasized by the court in its decision.

1. The appeal is preferred by the claimants against the award dated 08.12.2003 made in M.C.O.P No.241 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Erode.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

One deceased Kathirvel met with motor vehicle accident on 19.12.2002 at about 11.15 A.M. The deceased was riding his T.V.S. 50 moped bearing registration No.TN 33 R 0702 from south to north at Erode Town E.V.N Road. While he nearing stony bridge, a bus bearing registration No.TN 33 N 0855, belonging to the second respondent transport corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the T.V.S. 50 moped. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are wife and three sons of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The second respondent transport corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1.Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus or not?

2. What is the compensation, the claimants 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 transport corporation bus and awarded compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim and the details of the same are as under:-

Loss of income =Rs.1,89,000 /-

Loss of consortium =Rs. 5,000 /-

Funeral expenses =Rs. 2,000/-Total =Rs.1,96,000/-

Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants vehemently contented that the award passed by the Tribunal is very low and meagre. The Tribunal has not considered the relevant material and ought to have awarded compensation claimed by the claimants and also not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of love and affection to the children and also transportation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement.

4. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed.

5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondent transport corporation, R.W.1 Devaraj, who is the driver of the bus was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. PW2 is one Prakash, who is the eye witness to the accident. Ex.P1 dated 19.12.2002 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 19.12.2002 copy of the observation Mahazar, Ex.P3 dated 19.12.20002 copy of the Post-mortem report, Ex.P4 dated 21.12.2002 motor vehicles inspector’s report for moped, Ex.P5 dated 19.12.2002 motor vehicles inspector’s report for bus, Ex.P6 dated 27.12.2002 copy of the chargesheet, Ex.P7 dated 27.12.2002 demand notice, Ex.P8 dated 27.05.2003 is the legal heir certificate, Ex.P9 dated 18.11.2003 death certificate of one Periammal were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus. It is a question of fact The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed.

6. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)