J U D G M E N T

Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in M.C.O.P.No.557 of 2021, dated 18.07.2022, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The deceased is the husband of the first claimant and the father of the claimants 2 and 3. He was working in a petrol bunk and earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Besides, he was also doing agricultural coolie work and totally earning a sum of Rs.26,000/- per month. On 03.09.2021, at about 8.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 49 H 9948, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 68 N 1046 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 40 years. Hence, the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Corporation took a stand that the deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without wearing helmet and dashed against the bus and voluntarily invited the accident. According to them, the Corporation bus was driven by its driver carefully, at a moderate speed and following the traffic rules and the F.I.R. has been exaggerated against the driver of the Corporation bus.

3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked.

4. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, found that only the driver of the Corporation bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.20,85,456/- as compensation, by applying inflation index and took the notional income at Rs.14,108 and applying multiplier '14'. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would submit that the Tribunal has not fixed any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. That apart, the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the notional income adopted by the Tribunal is without any basis and the same has to be reduced.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal has adopted the notional income as per the inflation index. It is the contention that only the driver of the Corporation bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased.

7. In the light of the submissions, the point arise for consideration in this appeal is wether the Tribunal is right in adopting the notional income of Rs.

14,108/- and whether the deceased was negligent in riding the motorcycle. 8. On perusal of the entire evidence, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 clearly spoken that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and based on which, the F.I.R. Has been registered against the driver of the bus. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 44 years. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicate that the deceased was working in a petrol bunk. Though exact monthly income has not been established, the Tribunal, considering the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 54 (Andal and others vs. Avinav Kannan and another), has applied inflation index and fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,108/-. The Tribunal has also added 25% towards future prospects, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praney Sethi case.

9. In such a view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which does not require any interference. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permit