The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for evidence to prove income or earning capacity in motor accident compensation claims, and the application of the multiplier method and deduction for contributory negligence in cases of driving without a license.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 24.10.2014 made M.C.O.P. No. 350 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Puducherry.

1. This is a claimant appeal, filed for enhancement of compensation.

2. The unmarried son of the appellant died on 16.05.2011, the day after he met with the motor accident while driving a two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 bearing Registration No. PY-01-AE-0421. The appellant filed the claim petition for Rs. 10 lakhs stating that his son was 18 years old at the time of accident. While he was driving the two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 with one Bharat in the pillion, a goods carrier vehicle TATA TIPPER LORRY bearing Registration No. TN-32-D-6994 dashed the motor cycle and knocked down the rider and pillion rider. The son of the appellant who was driving the two wheeler sustained crush injuries and succumbed to the injury in the hospital. At the time of accident, the deceased was earning R. 700/- per day as JCB operator. The Claim Petition filed for Rs. 10 lakhs under different heads as below:-

3. The Insurance Company filed its counter and contested the claim. Specifically, it was pleaded that the claimant has not impleaded the two wheeler owner and if insured, the insurer of the motor cycle driven by the deceased. They are necessary parties since the deceased is the tort-feasor. The deceased did not possess a valid driving license and the two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 he drove was not insured. The age and income of the deceased as stated in the petition denied as false and exaggerated.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant and one Thangarasu witness to the accident were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked in support of the claim. No evidence on behalf of the respondent let in.

5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Ex P-1 the First Information Report viewed that the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent (driver of the lorry) is the cause for the accident. The first respondent possess valid driving license and the lorry is validly insured with the second respondent insurance company. Therefore the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant who is the father of the deceased.

6. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the deceased just attained 18 years and had no document to show his income and considering the fact that his mother pre deceased him and his father was 42 years old, living with his second wife and children born through her, awarded a consolidated sum of Rs 3,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%.

7. In the appeal, it is canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal failed to consider the claim that the daily income of the deceased was Rs. 700/- as JCB operator. The Tribunal ought to have fixed his income notationally at the rate of Rs. 6,600/- and should have applied the multiplier method adding 40% for the future prospect. The consolidated award of Rs. 3,50,000/- is very low and to be enhanced.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted, that, the deceased was hardly 18 years and 2 months at the time of accident as per the birth certificate Ex.P-9. He had no educational qualification or other skill to earn for living. No documents produced to show he is trained to operate JCB and effectively employed as JCB operator. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly held that there is no material evidence to infer the gainful employment of the deceased. Therefore in the given facts and circum