The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining fair and reasonable compensation in cases of death, including the assessment of damages, deduction of income towards personal expenses, and the use of appropriate multipliers.

1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Transport Corporation against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.3986/1998 dated 19.06.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Session Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Chennai-1.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The deceased-Vijayarangan met with motor vehicle accident on 19.04.1998 at about

02.40 p.m. While the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration no.TN.25 Y 1967, in Vandavasi - Kancheepuram road, a bus bearing registration no.TN.32 N 0312 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, which came from opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. In whose negligence, the accident had occurred? Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation? If so, how much?"

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,46,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The details of the compensation are as under:

for loss of income: Rs.8,16,000/-

for funeral expenses: Rs. 5,000/-

for loss of consortium: Rs. 10,000/-

for love and affection: Rs. 15,000/-

Totally: Rs.8,46,000/-

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

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation and vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded an excess and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification. He further contended that the Tribunal is erred in awarding a sum of Rs.8,16,000/-for loss of income, without any valid material and evidence, and the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

5. Heard the counsel and perused the documents available on record. On the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 and 2, were examined and documents Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2, Jayaraman is an eye witness to the accident. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is Xerox copy of the Postmortem certificate, Ex.P.3 is Legal heir certificate, Ex.P.4 is the Adangal Accounts, Ex.P.5 is the Document relating to the membership in the Sugar Cane Co-operative Society, Ex.P.6 is the receipt for receiving the sugarcane, Ex.P.7 is the Document showing his selection as the President, Ex.P.8 is the document showing the repairs done to the motor cycle. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no documents were marked on their side to support their claim.

Considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and 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