The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the determination of negligence in road accidents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order dated 10.03.2022 in M.C.O.P.No. 393 of 2015 on the file of the Special District Court Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy.)

1. This Cross Objection is filed under Section 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, to modify the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.393 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Tirchirppalli, dated 13.03.2022 and enhance the compensation amount.)

Common Judgment:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P. No.393 of 2015, dated 10.03.2022.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are as follows:-

(i) The deceased was aged about 27 years bachelor. He was running a brick kiln on his own. On 17.01.2014 at about 03.30 a.m., while the deceased was standing in the road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-AN-0160 came in a rash and negligent manner from north to south, dashed against the deceased. As a result, he succumbed to injuries there itself. FIR was also registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation. Hence, compensation of Rs.25 lakhs was claimed.

(ii) The first and second claimants are the parents of the deceased and the third and fourth claimants are the brothers of the deceased.

(iii) The respondent/Transport Corporation had contended that the bus was driven in a cautious manner and the driver of the Eicher Lorry, which was proceeding ahead the bus, applied sudden break and hence, the accident was occurred.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the respondent R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1was marked. Ex.C1 was also marked.

5. The tribunal, considering the evidence of the eye witness and FIR filed against the driver of the bus, found that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the bus and the contention of the respondent that the accident was occurred only by the Eicher lorry had not been established. Hence, the tribunal had fixed the compensation as follows: 

Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. The claimants have also filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submits that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation. The tribunal has erred in awarding compensation for loss of consortium to the first claimant.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants/Cross Objectors would submit that the Tribunal having rightly assessed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, had adopted monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.4,500/-, which is very low. The deceased was aged about 27 years. Even the concept of minimum wages is applied, he could have earned as sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income fixed by the tribunal has to be enhanced.

9. In view of the above submission, now the poi