IMPORTANT POINT
The various factors like multiplier, deductions for personal expenses, loss of consortium, grant of interest etc. as set out in judgments of Supreme Court should be considered while deciding compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT : -

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed in C.M.A. No. 690 of 2011 by the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court reduced the compensation awarded at Rs.37,33,248/-by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and re-determined at Rs.15,84,750/-.

2. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants with a view and to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled for the enhancement of compensation as prayed in this appeal.

The deceased met with an accident on 28.01.2009 on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. TN-23-AF-0048, which hit the back side of the deceased’s motor cycle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. A post-mortem was conducted on 29.01.2009 and inspection report was filed in CC.No.55 of 2009 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Walajahpet by the Inspector of Police against the driver of the offending vehicle. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the driver beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the driver of the vehicle from the charge framed against him vide order dated 31.05.2010.

3. The appellants - the widow, two daughters and bed ridden aged mother of the deceased-Vasanthan approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vellore (for short “MACT”) by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- on account of death of their sole bread earner, against the owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle. The said claim petition was registered as M.C.O.P. No. 138 of 2009.

4. The Insurance Company filed its counter statement stating that the accident occurred only due to the negligent riding of the two wheeler by the deceased-Vasanthan and that they are not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the appellants.

5. The MACT has conducted an enquiry by giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claim. Three witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3) were examined on behalf of the appellants and the exhibits were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-15. On behalf of respondents two witnesses RW-1 and RW-2 were examined and exhibits were marked as Exs. R-1 and R-2. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and legal evidence on record came to the right conclusion and held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, on the basis of legal evidence on record the MACT determined the quantum of compensation. For this purpose, the Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.50,809/-as per the salary certificate Exh.P-7. Therefore, his annual income was fixed at Rs.6,09,708/-. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 8. Therefore, the total loss of income of the deceased would be Rs.48,77,664/-. 1/4th of this amount i.e. Rs.12,19,416/-was deducted towards his personal expenses as his dependents are four in number. Hence, the loss of dependency of the appellants was calculated at Rs.36,58,248/-. For funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.5,000/-was awarded. For loss of estate Rs.10,000/-and for loss of consortium to the appellant, a sum of Rs.10,000/-was granted. For loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.50,000/-was granted to the appellants. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed the total compensation under different heads as mentioned above and passed an award for a sum of Rs.37,33,248/-to the appellants with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition i.e. 08.06.2009 and further directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount by indemnifying the owner of the vehicle as the same was insured with it.

6. The insurer i.e. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. had challenged the correctness of the award passed by