The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the deceased's income, the application of the multiplier method, and the definition of dependents in awarding compensation in motor accident cases.

R. Subbiah, J.

1. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge -Fast Track Court No.IV), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1289 of 2003 vide., order dated 14.07.2008, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal in CMA.No.2575 of 2009. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.1115 of 2012. Hence, both the appeal are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. For the sack of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking in C.M.A.No.2575 of 2009. The appellant is the insurance company and the respondents are the mother, father and sister of the deceased D.Ravi respectively.

3. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on 12.11.2012 at about 7.45 hours, while the deceased D.Ravi was proceeding in his two wheeler towards Ambattur Estate, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-02-B-0553 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two wheeler, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple and fatal injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the respondents/claimants made a claim for a sum of Rs.45 lakhs as compensation as against the owner of the lorry and its Insurer/appellant herein.

4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove their claim, on the side of the respondents/claimants, the 1st respondent/mother of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining two other witnesses as P.W.2 & P.W.3, and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, has passed an award for a total sum of Rs.24,59,112/-. Hence, the present appeals.

5. Since the appeals have been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation, there is no need for this Court to go into other aspects.

6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal that at the time of accident, the deceased was 26 years old and he was possessing a Master Degree in Computer Science and he was an income-tax assessee and he was employed at Wipro Company and earning a sum of Rs.2,82,935/-per annum. In order to prove the income earned by the deceased, on the side of the respondents/claimants, the Manager-HR of the Wipro Technologies was examined as P.W.3 and Salary Certificate was marked as Ex.P.19 and Income-Tax SARAL Form was marked as Ex.P.28.

7. The Tribunal by placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.19 & Ex.P.28 has fixed a sum of Rs.2,82,935/-as annual gross income of the deceased and after deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal by taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, who was 45 years at the time of the death of her son, by applying the multiplier of 13, has awarded a sum of Rs.24,52,112/- for loss of income.

8. Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that a perusal of the SARAL Form-Ex.P.28, would reveal that the annual taxable income of the deceased is only Rs.2,06,620/- for the assessment year 2002-2003, whereas the Tribunal has taken into consideration the Gross income of the deceased viz., Rs.2,82,935/- for calculating the loss of income to the claimants on the account of the death of the deceased in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company further submitted that the deceased had worked in Wipro Company only for two days and when that being so, the Tribunal ought not to have placed reliance on Ex.P.28 and thereby, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the annual loss of income as Rs.2,82,935/-. Hence, by fixing the total taxable income of the deceased as his actual annual income, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced.

9. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the claim was made by the pa