The court emphasized the test of preponderance of probability in motor vehicle accident cases and considered the future prospects of the deceased for computing the loss of contribution to the family.

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

In the accident which occurred on 24.03.2017, involving a state transport corporation bus, bearing Regn.No.TN01N4249, a pedestrian died. He was stated to be aged 34 years and as an Associate Consultant in M/s.Wipro Technologies, earned Rs.37,500/- per month. A case in Crime No.123 of 2007 has been registered against the driver of the bus on the file of GST Road Traffic Investigation, Tambaram. Parents preferred MCOP No.1503 of 2007 on the file of MACT [Chief Judge, Small Causes Court], Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs.40 Lakhs under various heads.

2. Though, transport corporation disputed the manner of accident and negligence attributed to the driver of the bus, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, vide judgment and decree in MCOP No.1503 of 2007 dated 03.11.2010, the tribunal held that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, Ex.P6, copy of MCA certificate, Ex.P7, Bank statement, Ex.P10, copy of the Identity Card of PW2, Ex.P11, copy of Identity card of PW3, witnesses examined to prove that the deceased was employed as an Associate Consultant in Wipro Technologies, Chennai, Ex.P12, Authorisation letter, Ex.P13, appointment letter of the deceased, Ex.P13, joining report of the deceased, Ex.P15, employment certificate of the deceased, Ex.P16, salary certificate of the deceased and Ex.P17, letter regarding future benefits of the deceased, the tribunal fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.33,334/-. Annual income was estimated as Rs.4,00,008/- and rounded off the same to Rs.4,00,000/- and after deducting 20% towards Income Tax, tribunal arrived at the annual loss of Rs.3,20,000/-. Deceased was a bachelor. Parents alone were the claimants. Therefore, after deducting 50% i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, and by applying 11 multiplier, the tribunal arrived at the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.17,60,000/-. That apart, awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. Altogether, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim till deposit and costs.

3. In the appeal, it is contended that the tribunal failed to consider that the deceased crossed the road without noticing the bus and thus invited the accident. Tribunal erred in determining the monthly income as Rs.33,334/-, by including PF, gratuity and other allowances. Tribunal erred in applying 11' multiplier. Excepting the above, no other grounds merit consideration.

4. Adverting to the aspect of negligence, it is the case of the respondents that on 24.03.2007 about 22.00 hours, when the deceased was crossing GST Road, on the Pedestrian Crossing beneath MIT Over bridge, Chrompet, west to east direction, a State Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN01N4249 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, on GST Road, south to north direction, hit the pedestrian. He sustained grievous injuries and died. In this regard, a criminal case has been registered.

5. To prove the manner of accident, PW1, father of the deceased has adduced evidence. PW2 is stated to be an eye witness. Corroborating the testimony, Ex.P1, FIR and Ex.P2, Sketch have been marked on the side of the respondents/claimants, RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation, appellant herein has also admitted that a criminal case was filed against him and that the same was pending before the Magistrate Court, at the time of trial of MCOP No.1503 of 2007. Before the tribunal, he has also admitted that he saw the deceased 50 feet before the place of accident and that he attempted to stop the vehicle, but the accident occurred. Analysing the testimony of PW1 and PW2, corroborated by Exs.P1, FIR and P2, Sketch, vis-a-vis, testimony of RW1, driver, the c