The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining compensation in road accident cases, including factors such as notional income, deduction towards personal expenses, and enhancement towards future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruvarur.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation to set aside the award dated 23.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruvarur.

2. The appellant/Transport Corporation is respondent in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruvarur. The respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his son viz., Lakshmanan, who died in the accident that took place on 12.05.2011.

3. According to the respondent, on the date of accident, i.e., on 12.05.2011 at about 2.00 p.m., while one Rajeshkannan was riding the Bajaj pulsar motorcycle along with the deceased Lakshmanan as a pillion rider on Nagapattinam to Tanjore road, near Kannan hospital, Koradacheri, on the left hand side of the road, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, who was coming in the opposite direction, from West to East direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle in which the deceased travelled as pillion rider, due to the said impact, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motorcycle were thrown out and thus, the accident has occurred. In the accident, the said Rajeshkannan, the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot and the deceased Lakshmanan succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Therefore, the respondent filed the above claim petition claiming compensation as against the appellant/Transport Corporation.

4. The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that while the driver of the bus was driving the same in a careful manner, on seeing the motorcycle, which was coming in the opposite direction wrongfully, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, stopped the bus on the left side of the road. At that time, the rider of the motorcycle dashed against the bus and invited the accident. The driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. The respondent has to prove that the rider of the motorcycle was wearing helmet and possessing driving license at the time of accident. The insurer of the motorcycle was not made as party to the claim petition and hence, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Therefore, the appellant/Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. The appellant has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the compensation claimed by the respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent, father of the deceased, examined himself as P.W.1, one Manikandan, was examined as P.W.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined one Senthilkumar, the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and did not file any document.

6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.19,85,000/- as compensation to the respondent.

7. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 23.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2017, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation contended that the respondent has stated that the deceased was working as an elec