The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a motor accident and the calculation of compensation, including the monthly income of the deceased and the grant of future prospects, in accordance with legal principles established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.355 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge, Special Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.)

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.355 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Sub Judge, Special Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The accident occurred on 09.01.2015 at about 02.30 P.M., at Tiruvannamalai Manalurpettai Main Road near Katchirapattu Koot Road, Tiruvannamalai District. Thatchampattu Police Station registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2015 under Section 304(A) IPC.

3. The deceased one Mr.Govindhasamy was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was working as Building Mason. His wife, two children and the mother of the deceased are the claimants.

4. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties.

5. The second respondent-Insurance Company also contested the case. The deceased Mr.Govindhasamy was travelling in the Bajaj Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-25-H-0745 and one Mr.Sekar was a pillion rider. At that time, the rider of the TVS Apache Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-25-AJ-7687 came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling. The pillion rider Mr.Sekar fell down and sustained injuries and the deceased was taken to JIPMER Hospiral, Pondicherry for treatment. Despite the treatment given in the Hospital, Mr.Govindhasamy died on 11.01.2015.

6. The owner of the first respondent-TVS Apache Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-25-AJ-7687 remained ex parte even before the Tribunal. The insurer of the said Motorcycle contested the case before the Tribunal. PW-2, in support of the second respondent-Insurance Company, deposed that the rider of the Bajaj Motorcycle, in which the deceased was travelling, suddenly came to the right side of the road, which caused the accident. Thus, the deceased was responsible for the accident and therefore, the second respondent-Insurance Company is to be exonerated. However, the Tribunal considered the altered Final Report submitted by the police in the criminal case, which reveals that the rider of the TVS Apache Motorcycle was responsible. Both Exs.P-1 and P-5 unambiguously clarified that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the TVS Apache Motorcycle belongs to the first respondent. As the Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW-2, Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-5 and other facts and circumstances of the case, accordingly, arrived a conclusion that the rider of TVS Apache Motorcycle belongs to the first respondent is responsible for the accident and committed the act of negligence by driving the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the fact that the first respondent has committed an act of negligence, the liability was fixed on the insurer second respondent to pay compensation to the claimants.

7. The Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and applied 15 multiplier and accordingly, granted a sum of Rs.10,53,000/- towards loss of income.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants strenuously disputed the manner in which the monthly income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal. It is contended that the Mason is a skilled worker and the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and the claimants are wife, two minor children and the aged mother of the deceased. Therefore,