The determination of future prospects at 50% and the proper multiplier for compensation are crucial in assessing the quantum of compensation in fatal accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sudhakar, J.—The appeal is filed by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 6.6.2012 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 2953 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (XV Additional Court, City Civil Court), Chennai. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case took place on 25.5.2008 at about 0815 Hours. One Sheik Allaudeen was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-04-T-7418 at Arcot Road in front of CSI Church from east to west. He was hit by the bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-3032 belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, and the victim died on the spot. FIR was registered against the driver of the bus. The mother of the deceased aged about 45 years and the father of the deceased aged about 50 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased, aged about 19 years, was pursuing first year M.B.B.S. Course in Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Porur, Chennai.

2. In support of the claim, the second respondent herein (father of the deceased) was examined as P.W. 1. P.W. 2 is an eye witness. The respondents herein (claimants) marked 10 documents as Exs. P1 to P10, the details of which are as follows:-

3. On the side of the Transport Corporation (appellant herein), the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation was examined as R.W. 1. However, no document was marked on their behalf.

4. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced, came to conclusion that the negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation was the cause of the accident and consequently liability was fixed on the appellant/Transport Corporation to compensate the claimants. The Tribunal after considering the MBBS Admission Receipt (Ex. P7) and the ID Card (Ex. P9), opined that the deceased, as a Doctor, would earn a minimum sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month in future and thus, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 50% of the said amount towards his personal expenses and fixed the monthly loss of the respondents at Rs. 15,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal after considering the age of the respondents (Ex. P6), fixed the multiplier applicable as 13' and awarded compensation as under:

5. Heard Mr. A. Babu, learned counsel for the appellant (Transport Corporation) and Mr. T.G. Balachandran, learned counsel for the respondents (claimants).

6. The point in issue is whether the income of the deceased fixed at Rs. 30,000/- per month is erroneous.

7. We find from the evidence on record and the findings of the Tribunal that the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 30,000/- per month. After deducting 50% of the same towards personal expenses, the Tribunal, considering the age of the respondents/claimants, adopted the multiplier of 13'. On the quantum of compensation, we find that the income of the deceased taken at Rs. 30,000/- per month, if objected to, can at best be reduced to Rs. 20,000/- per month considering the fact that the deceased was a First Year MBBS Student. Nevertheless, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Ku