JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Namakkal) (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in M.C.O.P. No.1226 of 2015, dated 18.04.2022, awarding compensation of Rs.24,96,200/- to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, the present Appeal has been filed by the State Transport Corporation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 26.08.2015, at about 08.45 a.m., while the deceased Gopal, aged about 20 years studying First Year MBA, was travelling to his College in the Government Bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-30-N-1006, on the Salem-Karur National Highway, when the Bus entered the Service Road, the driver of the Bus drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed School Bus bearing Registration No.TN-88-Z-6085 on its backside. Due to the said impact, the deceased was thrown out of the Government Bus and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and later, succumbed to the injuries. A criminal case was also registered as against the driver of the Government Bus in Paramathi Police Station Crime No.203 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.

3. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of accident and he had completed his BBA and he was studying First Year MBA and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- by assisting in project works. According to them, the deceased was a brilliant student and if he had completed his MBA, he would have earned a huge amount. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 made a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1226 of 2015, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. Admitting the occurrence, it is the contention of the appellant Transport Corporation before the Tribunal that the deceased was travelling on footboard. It is their contention that, since the other vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-88-Z-6085, which is a School Van, suddenly applied brake, the accident had occurred. According to them, the entire accident was due to the driver of the School Van. The income of the deceased was also disputed. Though the 3^rd respondent/School also contested the case before the Tribunal, the claim was made only as against the appellant Corporation.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the appellant Corporation, the driver of the Government Bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on their side.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, taking note of the age of the deceased, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- per month and taking note of the fact that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, by applying the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others,  2017 (2) TNMAC 609, added 40% as future income and calculated the monthly income at Rs.22,400/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal, after deducting 50% as per the dictum laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,  AIR 2009 SC 3104, fixed the net monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,200/-. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and thereby, arrived at the loss of income at Rs.24,19,200/-. The Tribunal also awarded the compensation under various other heads as follows:-

7. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an Award dated 18.04.2022, fixing the total compensation at Rs.24,96,200/- payable to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

8. Challenging the Award of the Tribunal, the State Transport Corporation has filed the present Appeal.

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation is tha