(1.) THE claimants, who lost their only son in a motor accident, have come forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai dated 31.01.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.2206 of 1997 in so far as the disallowed portion of the claim is concerned.
(2.) ARULKUMAR, son of the petitioners herein, at the age of 25 met with a road accident on 05.05.1997 at about 7.40 p.m. while he was proceeding in his motorcycle as the bus bearing Registration No.TML 2000 belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation dashed against the said motorcycle at the junction of 4th Avenue and 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Contending that the driver of the above said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and turned the bus at the junction without carrying for the safety of the deceased who was proceeding in his motorcycle and that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation was the cause of the accident. The petitioners assessed the damages to which they were entitled at Rs.3,13,000/-, but filed the claim petition restricting their claim to Rs.2,25,000/- alone.
(3.) NOW the appellants have come forward with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and not commensurate with the loss occasioned to the appellants/petitioners. The appellants have contended that the Tribunal had not taken into account the fact that the deceased had completed the diploma course in Electronics and Communication Engineering but had not got through the examination due to one reason or other that the Tribunal should have considered the reasonable expectation of the parents of the deceased that the deceased would have obtained the diploma atleast within a couple of years and secured a job with more monetary benefits and that if such prospective earnings were taken into account, the Tribunal should have fixed the average monthly income of the deceased at the minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that if the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the amounts claimed by the petitioners as compensation would be even less than the amount to which the petitioners would be entitled as fair and reasonable compensation and that hence, the Tribunal ought to have passed an award allowing compensation as prayed for.