The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in road traffic accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the evidence of the deceased's income and the application of relevant legal provisions.

R.BANUMATHI,J.

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.13,75,000/- awarded for the death of K.Ashokan in a road traffic accident on 24.04.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.1766 of 2011. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.3546 of 2011. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, they were heard together and stand disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in C.M.A.No.1766 of 2011.

2. Brief facts are that on 24.4.2007 deceased Ashokan was travelling in the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-09-AC 5496 as pillion rider from Panapakkam to Vellore on Madras-Bangalore Highways Road and when the motorcycle was nearing Ocheri Koot Road, a car bearing registration No.TN-23 AY 6069 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, Ashokan sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, Ashokan was taken to Government Hospital, Walajahpet and on way the hospital, Ashokan died. At the time of accident, deceased Ashokan was aged 37 years and was a Proprietor of Rajeswari Dyeing Factory, Panapakkam, Velore District and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the car driver in Crime No.161 of 2007 of Kaveripakkam Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver, the Claimants, who are wife, daughter and parents of the deceased, have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of motorcyclist. Appellant-Insurance Company has also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and contended that the quantum of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- claimed by the Claimants is on the higher side.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, 1st Claimant-Manjula examined herself as P.W.1, clerk in Ashokan Dyeing Factory viz., Govindarajan as P.W.2 and one Pattabhi, who was working as Commercial Tax Officer in Arakonam was examined as P.W.3 and eye-witness (Dayalan) was examined as P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P.1 F.I.R and filing of charge sheet against car driver, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of car driver. Tribunal held that the appellant/insurer of the car and the owner of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Pointing out that the deceased was doing business, the Tribunal had taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Deducting 1/4th of the income for personal expenses and adopting multiplier 15, Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,50,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 15) towards loss of earnings. Adding conventional damages of Rs.25,000/-, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.13,75,000/-.

6. P.W.4 Dayalan is the eye witness, who spoke about the accident. Ex.P.1 F.I.R in Crime No.161 of 2007 on the file of Kaveripakkam Police Station was registered against the car driver and chargesheet was also filed against him. The evidence as to rash and negligent manner driving of car driver is unassailable and the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the appeal mainly challenging the quantum.

7. Assailing Ex.P.9 series bill books and Ex.P.18 day book, Mr.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that those registers are not reliable documents and in the absence of any income-tax return, the Tribunal ought not to have assumed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as income of the deceased and Rs.13,50,000/- awarded towards loss of earning is on the higher