1. The Insurance Company is before this Court challenging the award of Rs.10,74,000/- granted to the parents of one K. Prakash, aged about 18 years, II year B.Com student, who died in the accident, which occurred on 19.09.2011, when the van insured with the appellant-Insurance Company took reverse and hit the bus on the back left side resulting in the said Prakash, who was traveling on the foot board of the Transport Corporation bus, sustaining grievous injuries, leading to his death. Therefore, the claim petition was filed.

2. The Tribunal, on enquiry, found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van and fixed 90% negligence on the van driver and 10% negligence on the deceased, as he was traveling on the foot board of the bus. Taking a sum of Rs.6,500/- as monthly income; adding 50% towards future prospects; applying multiplier 18 and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the loss of income was determined at Rs.10,53,000/-. Including other amounts, totally, a sum of Rs.11,93,000/- was awarded as compensation, out of which, the claimants were entitled to only 90%, namely, a sum of Rs.10,74,000/-, as 10% contributory negligence was fixed on the deceased. The said award is being challenged on the question of quantum as well as negligence.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, P.W.2, Rose Ganapathy, who got injured in the same accident and examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence, deposed that it was the van, which was driven rashly and negligently. Considering P.W.2's evidence as well as Ex.P1, FIR and Ex.P6, charge sheet filed against the van driver, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the van was driven rashly and negligently. Taking note of the evidence of R.W.1, who deposed that the deceased was traveling on the foot board of the bus, the Tribunal rightly fixed 10% negligence on the part of the deceased, as foot board traveling is prohibited. Therefore, fixing of 90% negligence on the part of the van driver and 10% negligence on the part of deceased is based on evidence and the same cannot be interfered with.

5. Further, a close scrutiny of the award would show that the driver of the van was holding driving licence only for driving a light motor vehicle and he had no badge endorsement to drive a transport vehicle like van. The said fact was proved by the appellant-Insurance company by sending a letter to the owner of the vehicle to produce the driving licence. In view of the above position, the Tribunal rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

6. Admittedly, the deceased was a 18 year old, II year B.com. student and he would come under the definition of non-earning member. Curiously, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased, a non- earning member, at Rs.6,500/- following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 and added 50% towards “future prospects” as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 and determined the total monthly income at Rs.9,750/-. But, the said determination is without any basis. In the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459, the injured was a vegetable vendor, an earning member and therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court determined the monthly income at Rs.6,500/-. By no stretch of imagination, the said judgment can be made applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, the