The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying multipliers, and future prospects for self-employed individuals should be considered in assessing compensation.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2011 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1521 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge and Special Judge for EC Act cases, Salem.

1. The appellants are mother and the brothers of the deceased Kumar. Not satisfied with the quantum of award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, for the death of Kumar in the road accident, Appeal is preferred by them seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. On 27.07.2009, at 2.30 p.m. when Kumar was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle driven by his friend, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30-N-0153 owned by the respondent Transport Corporation hit the motorcycle from the opposite direction and caused fatal injury to the pillion rider Kumar, near Srinivasa Nagar bus stop on the Omulr to Chettichavadi road. The negligent was attributed to the driver of the Transport bus. A case was registered against the bus driver in Crime No. 890/2009. At the time of death, Kumar was 28 years old, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. His mother and two brothers were his dependants. Hence, claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- was filed before the MAC Tribunal at Salem.

3. The respondents denied their liability on the ground that, death of Kumar was not due to the accident involving their bus. The age and income of the deceased also denied. Further, it is also stated that the claim petitioners are not the dependants of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined three witnesses PW-1 is the 1st claimant who is the mother of the deceased. PW-2 is the eye witness who was riding the two wheeler carrying Kumar on the pillion at the time of accident. PW-3 (Srinivasan) is the employer of the deceased Kumar. Five Exhibits were marked on behalf of the claimants. They are First Information Report about the accident, Post-mortem certificate of the deceased Kumar, Legal Heirs certificate, Driving License of driver of the motorcycle and the salary certificate of the deceased. On behalf of the respondent Thiru. Balakrishnan, the conductor of the bus was examined as RW-1.

5. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence has held that the accident was caused by the temporary driver of the respondent/Transport Corporation, who rash and negligently hit the motorcycle, thereby causing the death of Kumar who was on the pillion. PW-3 the contractor, has deposed that the deceased Kumar was working under him as mason for five year and he was paying Rs. 250/- as daily wage and salary certificate issued by him was marked as Ex.P.5. The Tribunal noting that necessary particulars regarding the contractor is not found in the salary certificate and also there is no document to substantiate the deceased received Rs. 250/- per day, taking note of the prevailing wage for a self employed labourer, fixed Rs. 150/- per day as wage and notional monthly income as Rs. 4,500/-

6. Relying upon the dictum of Sarala Verma case, 50% of the income has been deducted since the deceased was a bachelor. Taking into account the age (28 years old) of the deceased and the age of the mother, who is the claimant, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 11 and fixed loss of dependency as Rs. 2,97,000/-. Further, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for transport and funeral expenses was awarded to sum up the compensation as Rs. 3,02,000/-.

7. The present Appeal is filed alleging that the compensation awarded is very low and the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month instead Rs. 4,500/-.

8. The Learned Counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that, after the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi case, it has now b