The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor accident case, including the calculation of dependency, income, and adjustments to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 20.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1243 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.1 to deal with the Motor Accident Claims Original Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in and by award dated 20.12.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.1243 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.1 to deal with MCOP Cases), Small Causes Court, Chennai, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants before the Tribunal. They are the sons of the deceased Mohideen Fathima @ Niraimathi, whose husband pre-deceased her. The claimants are aged about 20 years and 19 years respectively.

3. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants before the Tribunal that on 19.01.2017 at about 6 p.m., their mother was travelling as a pillion-rider in a motor-cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-69-AU-0645 ridden by one Ravimurugan, who is the third respondent herein, from Red Hills to Vadapalani on the 100 Feet Road and while they were nearing Asian Games Village at Koyambedu, the rider of the two-wheeler drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and applied sudden brake, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the bike and sustained head injuries. Immediately, she was admitted in the SIMS Hospital, Vadapalani and on 20.01.2017, she died inspite of treatment given to her. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years and was working as Senior Professor in J.N.N.College of Engineering, Red Hills, Tiruvallur and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants have made a claim of Rs.80 lakhs as compensation before the Tribunal for the death of their mother, who died in the said accident.

4. The claim petition filed by the claimants, was resisted by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing counter statement, denying the manner in which the accident had occurred, the occupation and the income of the deceased.

5. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1, besides the eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were marked on their side. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 being the Administration Officer of the appellant-Insurance Company, was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked. The third respondent herein was examined as R.W.2 and on his side, Exs.R-4 to R-7 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler by its rider. After coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal has passed the award under various heads and the break-up details of the award are as follows:

The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Challenging the above award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

7. Now, it is the main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the respondents 1 and 2 are the major sons of the deceased mother, and therefore, it cannot be said that they are the dependants on the income of their mother. U