The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in cases of fatal accidents, considering factors such as negligence, future prospects, and entitlement of family members for compensation based on the principle of filial consortium.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, dated 20.04.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, dated 20.04.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, is as follows: On 25.10.2014, at about 3.45 pm., while the deceased was nearing her house, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-1585 came in a rash and negligence manner, dashed against the deceased. The deceased sustained injury and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, is as follows:

The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The bus driver drove the bus in a careful and cautious manner. It was the deceased, who crossed the road with her sister, without observing the traffic and invited the accident. The driver of the bus applied sudden brake, even then the child hit the front portion of the bus. The accident has happened only due to the negligence of the child. The bus driver is not responsible for the accident. The claim is excessive and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

4. On the side of the claimants, 1 witness was examined and 11 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, 1 witness was examined and no document was marked. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- as compensation.

5. Against the order, the appellant / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has erred in fixing the entire negligence on the bus driver. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the deceased, who failed to observe the traffic. The compensation awarded is excessive. Annual income of the deceased fixed as Rs.60,000/-, is excessive. Adopting multiplier 13' is also excessive.

6. On the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation, it is stated that the deceased was a minor girl, aged about 13 years, she crossed the road suddenly, without observing the traffic. Fixing a notional income of Rs.60,000/- per annum is excessive. Only Rs.30,000/- per annum has to be fixed and the Tribunal has failed to deduct 50% of her own expenses. A judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2014-1-SCC-244 (Kishan Gopal & Anr vs Lala & Ors) is cited.

7. On the side of the respondents / claimants, it is stated that the sisters are also entitled for compensation. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018-2-TNMAC-452 (SC) (Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., V. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

“Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

...........

In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of Filial consortium.”

8. On the side of the respondents/ claimants, it is stated that the notional income has to be fixed above Rs.50,000/- per annum. The Tribunal fixed only a notional income. The Tribunal failed to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

9. Considering the age of the dependents of the deceased, multiplier 14' has to be a