The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of dependency and income computation in compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as influenced by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

K. Natarajan, J. - This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'insurer') being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollegal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MVC No.285/2010, dated 03.03.2012.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4. The other respondents served absent.

3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') for claiming compensation of Rs.12,20,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, inter alia contending that on 27.08.2010 at 9.30 a.m., the wife of petitioner No.1 namely Rajamma while tethering cattles by driving the cattles on the left side of the road, at that time a Maruthi Omni car bearing Registration No. CAU 8266 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Rajamma, as a result she sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the deceased son, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were also daughter and son claimed the compensation on various heads.

5. Pursuant to the notice, the owner of the offending vehicle placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-insurer filed objection by denying all the averments made in the claim petition as false and taken the contention that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. Therefore, there cannot be any liability on the insurer, hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Based upon the pleading, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

"i) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident in question occurred on 27-8-2010 at about 9.30 a.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Omni bearing Regn. No.CAU 8266 near Munina Kere, Ajjipura Hanur road, Ajjipura and caused the death of Rajamma?

ii) Whether the respondents prove that they are not liable to pay compensation for the reasons stated in the objection statement?

iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to and from whom?

iv) What Order or award?"

7. The claimants to prove their case, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents, the respondents not led any evidence. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,65,000/- with 6% interest per annum. Assailing the same, the insurer preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the judgment and computation of income and deduction towards personal expenditure by the Tribunal was not correct. The age of the deceased was 47 years and though the claimants themselves have stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.70/- to Rs.80/- per day, but the Tribunal has considered Rs.5,000/- per month without any basis and petitioner No.1-her husband cannot be considered as dependant on his wife. The deceased-petitioner No.2-Pachamallu is married having a wife and a child (they are arrayed in this appeal as respondent No.2(a and b). The married son cannot be considered as a dependant. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were also major children. Therefore, deducting 1/4th of the income towards the personal expenditure of the deceased is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Therefore, prayed for reduction of the amount.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4 has supported the award passed by the Tribunal. However, fairly admits that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the major children, but he has contended that petitioner No.4 was unmarried son