The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for death in a motor accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering the negligence of the driver, the deceased's income, and the appropriate multiplier for calculating the compensation.

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1997 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1635 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge, Salem).)

Challenging the award dated 23.09.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge, Salem) (“the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1635 of 1995, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the death of the deceased Kannappan, the respondents herein who were the petitioners before the Tribunal filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1635 of 1995 seeking a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is their case that on 12.12.1994, when their son Kannappan, along with three others, traveled in an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TN-27-5274 from Athur to Sabarimala. On that fateful day, at 3.05 a.m., when the car was nearing Ammaiyanaickanoor in the Dindigul – Madurai road, its driver, with a view to make way for the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the car and collided against a bridge and in that accident, their son Kannappan sustained serious injuries and died in the hospital.

3. In the said petition, they contended that the deceased Kannappan was aged 28 years and was running agency business by name Vairam Agency and derived an income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and since he had died, they have suffered loss of income and agony and therefore, they are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.12 lakhs.

4. The second appellant Insurance Company filed a counter before the Tribunal and contended that the accident was not caused due to the carelessness and negligence of the car driver and further, the driving licence was not produced and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company has also questioned the age, income and occupation of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and Baranidharan and Rajavel who were the co-passengers in the car were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and as many as 22 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both the forms of evidence and holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and the first respondent being the owner of the car and the second respondent with whom the car has been insured, are variously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation, passed an award for Rs.3,00,000/- and apportioned the amount between the parents of the deceased.

7. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has put forward two-fold submission namely, (1) that the accident was not solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car in question since the accident occurred only when the car driver tried to avoid an oncoming motor cycle in high speed on the opposite side and (2) that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the compensation at Rs.3,00,000/- by applying the multiplier of 18 when the age of the deceased was 32 years and the parents were aged 49 and 52 years respectively.

8. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the accident took place in the manner as explained above. No witness was examined on the side of the respondents in respect of negligence. Furthermore, the car driver himself has admitted that when he had driven the car rashly, the car dashed against the bridge on the left side of the road. Taking into consideration the exhibits filed in support of the claimants, especially the First Information Report, the sketch showing the manner of accident, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Accident Register, charge sheet and post-mortem certificate, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due