The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's adherence to the principles of just compensation, including the interpretation of dependency compensation and the court's power to enhance compensation in the interest of justice.

1. Being aggrieved by the finding regarding negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded to the wife and other legal representatives, Respondents herein, the Appellant/State Transport Corporation has preferred this Appeal.

2. According to the Respondents/ Claimants that on 1.4.1999, while the Petitioner’s husband Selva Kumar was attempting to board a Transport bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-1322, the driver of the bus, suddenly started the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side of another bus bearing Registration TN-23-N-0688. Due to the accident, Selva Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died. According to the Respondents/Claimants, at the time of accident, he was a Salesman and earned Rs.2,500/- per month. They have claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Appellant / State Transport Corporation resisted the claim contending inter alia that when the bus was slowly moving near C.M.C. Hospital bus stop opposite to C.M.C. Hospital out-gate, the said Selva Kumar came running and tried to board a moving bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-1322 through the rear entrance and at that time, when the above said bus was negotiating another bus parked just in front or the bus and when it was turning to its right, the said person who was trying to board the moving bus, caught in between the two buses and he dashed against the stationed vehicle and sustained injuries and in these circumstances, the Corporation contended that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-23-N-1322. It is therefore submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the fault of the deceased, who tried to board a moving bus. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant/Transport Corporation also disputed the monthly income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.

3. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the manner of accident. Ex.P1 dated 1.4.1999 copy of First Information Report and Ex.P2, dated 2.4.1999, copy of the Post-Mortem Certificate. Driving Inspector was examined on behalf of the Appellant Transport Corporation as R.W.1, who has deposed that he received a message about the accident and thereafter, visited the spot. The driver of the bus has not been examined. Though P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident, her oral testimony has been duly corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR. Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle, against whom rash and negligent driving has been alleged, has not been examined. Drawing adverse inference, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Rash and negligent act is a personal act attributed to the cause of accident and in the absence of any rebuttal to the manner of accident as spoken to by P.W.1 and duly corroborated by Ex.P1 dated 1.4.1999-FIR, the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference.

4. While ascertaining the quantum of compensation, based on the entry in Ex.P2-Post-Mortem Certificate and the oral testimony of PW.1, wife, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 45 years. There is no irregularity in the determination of age. Though PW1 has contended that her husband was a Salesman in a Company, no documentary evidence was let in to prove the same. However, the Tribunal, having regard to the fact that the deceased was a father of four children, fixed his monthly income at Rs.2,000/-. Applying `15’ multiplier, and after deducting 1/3rd towards his Personal and Living Expenses computed the Loss of Dependency compensation at Rs.2,24,000/- and rounded off the same to Rs.2,50,000/- Except the above, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under any other hand.

5. Though the Appellant-Transport Corporation, has disputed the finding regarding negli