The assessment of compensation in motor accident claims should consider the loss of income to the family and the dependents' inability to generate fresh income.

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Virudhachalam in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2006 dated 02.12.2006. Respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants is as follows:

On 14.03.2005 at about 8.30 hours, when the deceased Thirumoorthy was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN 31 L 7902 on Trichy to Chennai Road, near Cheppakkam, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN 09 AC 4725 belonging to the fourth respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries on his way to the hospital. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.103 of 2005 on the file of Veppoor Police Station for the offence under Sections 273 and 304(A) I.P.C. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the claimants viz., mother, wife and minor sons of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs.

2. The appellant insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing the counter interalia contending that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased in driving his motorcycle and that the claim is excessive.

3. Before the Tribunal, the second claimant viz., the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness - Gengachalam was examined as P.W.2. One Ramasubban was examined as P.W.3 and Elumalai was examined as P.W.4. On the side of claimants, Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the appellant, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. The Tribunal framed two questions for consideration as to whether the claimants were entitled for compensation and who is liable to pay the said compensation and what would be the quantum of compensation payable.

4. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the loss of income at Rs.20,000/- per month and by adopting the multiplier 13, awarded the total compensation of Rs.31,75,000/- as under:

Loss of income .. Rs.31,20,000.00

(Rs.20,000/- x 12 x 13)

Loss of consortium .. Rs. 30,000.00

Loss of love and affection

to claimants 3 and 4

(Rs.10,000/- x 2) .. Rs. 20,000.00

Funeral expenses .. Rs. 5,000.00

= = = = = = = =

Total .. Rs.31,75,000.00

= = = = = = = =

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. The insurance company has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence aspect and this appeal is confined with regard to income of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was the agent of Canara Bank as well as Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Tribunal fixed the monthly income solely placing reliance upon the TDS certificate issued and the claimants did not file the income tax return of the deceased. Therefore, it is contended that the monthly income arrived at by the Tribunal is excessive.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants 2 to 4 on the above submissions.

7. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimant marked Exs.A9 and A10 and examined P.W.3 and P.W.4. From Ex.A9, it is seen that for a period of three years, the deceased had received commission from the Canara Bank to the tune of Rs.66,510/- to Rs.72,193/- and that amount was paid as commission after deducting Income Tax. Simultaneously, as per Ex.A10, the commission which was paid to the deceased from the Life Insurance Corporation of India for the period from 2000 – 2005, after deduction of Income Tax was Rs.26,92,934/-. The commission which was paid by Canara Bank to the deceased was on account of the deposits which were canvassed by the deceased from various depositors who had invested their money in Canara Bank