The Court Declined to Enhance Compensation Without a Claimant’s Appeal, Despite Potentially Inadequate Awards Under Other Heads.

The claimants, the deceased Karuppusamy’s legal representatives, sought compensation for his death after a bus owned by the appellant Transport Corporation struck him while he was walking along the Dindigul–Ottanchathram Main Road on 10 July 2005.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded Rs.6,29,000, including Rs.6,12,000 for loss of income, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Corporation appealed, challenging the findings on negligence and the assessment of compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the Corporation’s driver was negligent was sustainable.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal warranted interference, including in light of the Corporation’s challenges to the deceased’s age, income, and deduction for personal expenses.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The claimants submitted that the Court could enhance compensation under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court did not apply that provision to enhance the award; it noted that the claimants had filed no appeal seeking enhancement.

On negligence, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment, finding it supported by PW2’s evidence and Exhibits P1 and P3.

On quantum, it accepted the post-mortem report’s age of 38 over the claim petition’s stated age of 30, and found the monthly income of Rs.4,500 reasonable given the deceased’s agricultural work and other odd jobs in 2005; it also upheld the one-third deduction for personal expenses.

Although the Court observed that amounts under some other heads might not conform to amounts later fixed by the Supreme Court, it declined to interfere in the absence of a claimant appeal seeking enhancement.

It directed the Corporation to deposit the award amount with accrued interest and costs, if any, within six weeks of receiving the order; the claimants may then withdraw the sums according to the Tribunal’s apportionment. No order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.