The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims cases, including the calculation of pecuniary loss, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. The court also emphasized the legal principles governing the determination of compensation and the assessment of future prospects in cases involving the death of a minor.

M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellant/Second Respondent/Insurance Company has focused the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as against the award dated 28.03.2014 in M.C.O.P.Nos.1205, 1530 & 1307 of 2013 respectively passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (II Court of Small Causes, Chennai).

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in M.C.O.P.No.1205,1530 & 1307 of 2013 respectively (filed by the Respondents 1 to 8 herein as Petitioners/Claimants respectively) on 28.03.2014 passed the common award by allowing the petitions with proportionate costs against the Appellant/Second Respondent/Insurance Company and First Respondent therein by awarding a compensation of Rs.27,47,700/-, Rs.8,64,000/- and Rs.6,30,000/- respectively (including interim awards passed if any) payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petitions i.e., on 17.01.2013 & 23.01.2013 respectively till the date of deposit within two months from this date and to be paid by the Appellant/Second Respondent/Insurance Company on behalf of the First Respondent therein to the Respondents 1 to 8/Petitioners/Claimants. Further, in respect of M.C.O.P.No.1205 of 2013, the Tribunal held that from out of the award amount, the First Respondent/First Petitioner (wife of the deceased) was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, the Second Respondent/Minor Petitioner was awarded with a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and the Respondents 3 and 4/Petitioners (parents of the deceased) were awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,850/- each. Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the share amount of the Petitioners 1, 3, 4 were to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years in cumulative deposit and the share amount of the Second Respondent/Minor Petitioner was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit till she attains majority and the mother of the Minor Petitioner viz.,R.Vimala (the First Respondent/First Petitioner) was permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the Bank etc. Insofar the other petitions are concerned, the Respondents 5 & 6/Petitioners 1 & 2 in M.C.O.P.No.1530 of 2013 and Respondents 7 & 8/ Petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.1307 of 2013 are directed to share the award amounts equally among them and further, directed them to deposit their share amounts in a nationalised Bank for a period of three years in cumulative deposit.

3. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, the award dated 28.03.2014 in M.C.O.P.Nos.1205, 1530 & 1307 of 2013 respectively passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes, Chennai) are irrational, contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Claims Tribunal having apportioned the negligence on the part of four persons travelling in two wheeler should have held the rider of the two wheeler responsible for the occurrence in toto.

5. Appellant's Contentions raised in CMA.713 of 2015 (arising out the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1205 of 2013):

i) The main grievance is that the Tribunal had failed to take note of the fact that had the deceased earned Rs.19,500/- per month as mason, if so, P.W.5 would have produced some documentary evidence before the Tribunal in this regard. Unfortunately, there was no evidence in this regard before the Tribunal.

ii) The stand of the Appellant is that the Claims Tribunal ought not to have applied the multiplier of 16 inasmuch as the Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners had withheld the correct age proof of the deceased such as Voter ID, Ration Card, Driving License etc.

iii) The Learned counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Fourth Respondent/Fourth Petitioner had not established his dependency on the deceased and hence, the deduction towards personal expe