The Managing Director, Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation vs Thangaraju and Another

K. Govindarajan, J.—The transport corporation who was the respondent before the Tribunal, aggrieved against the award passed by the

Tribunal, in M.C.O.P. No. 132 of 1994, on the file of the III Additional Sub- Judge, Trichirapalli, has filed the above appeal. On 9.12.1993 while

the deceased Surendran was walking along the main road at Arumbavur near Thazuthalai, the bus belonging to the appellant corporation bearing

No. TN-45-N-0414 dashed against the deceased and he sustained fatal injury and he died in the hospital. The father and mother of the deceased

had filed the claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 132 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court, Thiruchirapalli)

claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation. According to them, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the

accident had taken place. The deceased was three years old when he died and he was the only son of the claimants. According to the claimants, if

the deceased is alive, there is a possibility of his becoming successful in life and he would have looked after his parents in their old age.

The appellant herein has filed a counter stating that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence of the deceased and the

compensation asked for is on the high side.

The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence fixed a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the

appellant has filed the above appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned the finding of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving aspect, but only

challenged before me that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the high side. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, the deceased was only three years old at the time of accident, and no evidence is available before the Court to show that the deceased

will grow and earn more money if he is alive, and so the award passed by the Tribunal is without any basis and without any material evidence

available on record.

It is not denied that the deceased was only three years old at the time of the accident and he is the only son of the claimants. Though there

cannot be any evidence to show that the deceased, if alive, will grow and earn more, the Court has to depend upon very many uncertain factors

and has to take overall picture, and form the estimate. It may be sometime based upon speculation. A just and fair calculation of compensation

would be, what the beneficiaries would have received from the deceased as support for their maintenance, had the deceased lived and earned. The

paramount consideration of the matter is only to protect the interest of the claimants so that the amount awarded to them by way of compensation

serves the purpose and the object of compensating them for the loss occasioned by the tragedy of the accident. In this case, the possibility of the

deceased becoming successful in life cannot be ruled out. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the

measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations.

In this case, the Tribunal has taken into consideration of the overall picture and fixed the compensation at Rs. 75,000. The learned counsel for

the appellant in support of his case cited a decision reported in Rani Mangammal Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramasamy Thevar and Another, .

In that case, the deceased was studying in 9th Standard. On that basis the Court found that he could not have rendered any assistance to his father

in the business at that time, and reduced the award amount. So, that decision cannot have any assistance to the appellant herein.

Though it is not specifically mentioned in the order, the Tribunal could have fixed the compensation at Rs. 75,000, by taking into consideration

of the loss of life, loss of love and affection and other expenses. So, taking into consideration of the overall picture, the compensation amount fixed

by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or baseless. I do not find any substance in the appeal.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 1026 of 1997 is also dismissed.