The court considered contributory negligence, proper calculation of compensation, and apportionment of compensation among claimants.

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award of Rs. 36,39,685/- as compensation for the death of one Rajan, in a motor accident that took place on 14.02.2008.

2. The claimants, who are the wife, minor daughter and son of the deceased, had contended before the Tribunal that when the deceased was riding a two wheeler on Konnur High Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-32-T-7564 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler, causing grievous injuries and the resultant death of the rider of the two wheeler, namely, M.Rajan. Contending that the said Rajan was working in a bank, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 20,530/-, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs.

3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two wheeler. It was also contended that the two wheeler, in fact, dashed against the rear right wheel of the lorry, resulting in accident. On the quantum, the Insurance Company had contended that the salary and other particulars have been exaggerated to claim high compensation.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. To come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the copy of the First Information Report, which was marked as Ex.P1 and the evidence of eyewitness-P.W.3. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the said lorry was almost on the middle of the road when the accident occurred. To disprove the negligence on the part of the lorry, the Insurance Company examined R.W.2, the driver of the lorry, who had deposed that the two wheeler, which was coming in the opposite direction, hit against the rear right wheel of the lorry, causing the accident.

5. We have gone through the evidence of both P.W.3 as well as P.W.1. We find that the evidence of P.W.3, has not been belittled in cross-examination. The rough sketch, which is available, would show that the two wheeler was also on the middle of the road when the accident occurred. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the two wheeler rider, viz., the deceased Rajan had also contributed to the accident to some extent. The Criminal Court had acquitted the driver of the lorry from the charges. The narration of above facts would go to show that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the two wheeler rider also. Considering the overall evidence, both oral and documentary, we are of the considered opinion that the contribution by the deceased to the accident can be fixed at 10%.

6. On the quantum, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs. 24,615/- and has added 30% towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly gross income of the deceased was arrived at Rs. 32,000/- and the annual income at 3,84,000/- and by deducting 20% towards Income Tax and 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the Tribunal has arrived at the annual pecuniary loss at Rs. 2,04,800/- and by adopting the multiplier 15, the Tribunal has arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 30,72,000/-.

7. Mrs.Srividya, the Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, would contend that though the other figures adopted by the Tribunal are proper, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier 15, on the other hand, it should have been 14, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 2 TNMAC 1

8. We also find that the multiplier adopted at 15 is incorrect. Therefore, adopting the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 28,67,200/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love