JUDGMENT :

S. KANNAMMAL, J.

These appeals are heard through "Video Conferencing".

2. Out of the two appeals, CMA. No. 40 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them, while the other appeal in CMA No. 520 of 2020 has been filed by the Transport Corporation questioning their liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants inter alia the quantum of compensation awarded. Thus, both these appeals are filed as against the order dated 19.07.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.455 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Gobichettipalayam. As both the appeals are filed against the same award, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For easy reference, the parties are referred to as 'claimants' and 'Transport Corporation' in these appeals.

4. On perusal of the claim petition, it could be inferred that the claimants are the parents of the deceased T. Vignesh, who was aged 22 years. According to the claimants, on 16.09.2013 at 04.30 a.m while the deceased was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. KA 57 F 857, which was proceeding from his native place Sathyamangalam to Mysore, the driver of the bus, driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. By reason of such reckless driving, near Kajjahalli gate, the driver of the bus hit the on-going Lorry bearing Registration No. KA 09 A 7889. Due to the impact, the deceased, who was one of the occupants of the bus, sustained several injuries on his abdomen, legs and other vital parts of the body. Similarly, 30 to 40 other passengers who were travelling in the bus also sustained grievous injuries. As far as the deceased is concerned, he was admitted in Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysore as in-patient for seven days. Despite treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 23.09.2013, at about 04.15 p.m., in the Hospital. In this context, the claimants/parents of the deceased lodged a complaint before the South Police Station, Mysore, based on which, a case in Crime No. 409 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304 (A) of IPC.

5. It is contended by the claimants that they have lost their son at their young age. It is also contended that the deceased was employed as a Systems Engineer at Infosys, Mysore and was drawing a salary of Rs.27,084/- per month. Therefore, for the death of the deceased, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/- as compensation.

6. Resisting the claim petition, the Transport Corporation, which was arrayed as the second respondent in the claim petition, filed a counter statement. According to the transport corporation, the driver of the bus had driven the bus carefully in a normal speed. However, in order to avoid a huge pit on the road, the driver attempted to negotiate it. At that time, the driver of the on-going lorry suddenly applied the brake, which resulted in the accident. Thus, the Transport Corporation would contend that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident had occurred inspite of exercise of due caution. The Transport Corporation also denied the age, income and other particulars furnished by the claimants in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. In order to prove the averments made in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimants, the second claimant/father of the deceased examined himself as PW1, besides two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 (Mr.G.T.Thirumal --eye-witness) and P.W.3 (Mr.Kumarasamy, Senior Associate) and 33 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P33. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus namely Mr.Somanna was examined as RW1 but no document was marked.

8. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the accide