The court established that gross salary, including future prospects, should be considered for compensation in fatal accident claims, with a standard deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated October 10, 2022 passed by the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Salem’ (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.C.O.P.No.202 of 2020, the respondent/Transport Corporation therein has preferred CMA.No.1295 of 2023. The claimants therein have preferred CMA.No.1788 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claim Original Petition.

3. The case of the claimants is that on November 27, 2019, the first claimant’s husband - Singaravelan was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN.29-BJ-1571 with a pillion rider in Dharmapuri – Salem Main Road near Deevattipatti at about 22 hours. At that time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-30-N-1438 belonging to the first respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from Salem towards Dharmapuri, suddenly turned without any signal or indicator, and hit against the deceased’s two-wheeler, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and passed away on the way to Government Hospital, Salem. At the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years old and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month as a Police Constable. The first claimant is the wife, the second and third claimants are the parents, the fourth claimant is the brother and the fifth claimant is the infant of the deceased. The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs,1,00,00,000/-.

4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition. The respondent averred that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the two-wheeler ridden by the deceased. According to the respondent, while the bus was slowly turning to the right, due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased, the two wheeler hit the rear side of the bus and the rider of the two wheeler fell down. Therefore, it was the deceased who is solely responsible for the accident and not the respondent’s bus driver. Hence, the respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. During enquiry, on the side of petitioners, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.11 were marked through him; one Senthilkumar, Assistant attached to the office of District Crime Branch, Salem, was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-X.1 – Pay Slips for August 2019 to October 2019 were marked through him; one Manimaran, who is the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.3. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined but no document was marked.

6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the driver of the first respondent was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and thereby caused the accident. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took a sum of Rs.22,769/- as the deceased’s basic salary, applied multiplier of 18, deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses and computed the compensation as tabulated below:-

7. Feeling aggrieved by the Award, the respondent - Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in CMA.No.1295 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award. The claimants have filed the appeal in CMA.No.1788 of 2023 praying for enhancement of compensation.

8. Mr.D.Nitin, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - Transport Corporation would submit that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. When the first respondent’s driver was turning the bus right side near Deevattipatti in a careful manner, the deceased rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rea