The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of claimants to enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the deceased's age at the time of the accident, loss of future prospects, and loss of estate.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 MACTOP.No.2399 of 2010 on the file of the Special Sub Judge – I, (Motor Accident claims Tribunal) Chennai.)

[This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing]

1. This Appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge dealing with the Motor Accident Claims cases, Chennai) in MCOP.No.2399 of 2010.

2. A person by name C.Rajammal died on 07.07.2010 as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Appellants/claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased C.Rajammal. They preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.2399 of 2010 seeking compensation for the death of C.Rajammal.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the impugned award directed the second respondent to pay the Appellants/claimants a compensation of Rs.4,61,000/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:

4. The Appellants/claimants unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have preferred this Appeal seeking for enhancement.

5. Heard Mr.P.Kalaiarasan, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mrs.R.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent has remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.

6. Before the Tribunal, the Appellants/claimants have filed seven documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and two witnesses were examined on their side namely the first Appellant who is the daughter of the deceased as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident as PW2. On the side of the respondents, neither any document was filed nor any witness examined before the Tribunal.

7. The first claimant before the Tribunal namely C.T.Chokalingam, the husband of the deceased died during the pendency of MCOP.No.2399 of 2010 and the second and third claimants namely K.Mahadevi and C.Nagalakshmi who are his daughters became his legal heirs.

8. In the claim petition, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased C.Rajammal was a servant-maid working at various houses and her monthly income was Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal has accepted the same and has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. The accident happened in the year 2010. After giving due consideration to the year of the accident, this Court is in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal as regards the monthly income of the deceased.

9. However, the Tribunal has erroneously failed to award any compensation towards loss of future prospects to the Appellants/claimants which they are legally entitled to as per the decision of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC). As per the said decision, since the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to 25% towards loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the same is granted by this Court.

10. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, since the claimants are two in number.

11. However, the Tribunal has erroneously adopted 11 multiplier instead of 13 which is the correct multiplier to be adopted as the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported i