The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of recent judgments and legal principles in re-calculating the compensation payable under different heads in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed u/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Villupuram.

1. This matter is heard through Video-Conferencing.

2. For the sake of convenience, appellants herein are referred to as 'Claimants' and second respondent herein is referred to as 'Insurance Company'.

3. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in and by its judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Villupuram, claimants have filed the present appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Claimants are wife, son and daughter of deceased Kannappan. The deceased was working as Head Constable. On 07.09.2014 at about 00.30 hours, while the deceased was riding pillion in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-BT-5221 on the Villupuram to Pondy main road and when they were nearing opposite to Jayaram's Sugarcane lands at L.R.Palayam, a Mahindra Logan Car bearing Registration No.TN-32-D-7878 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler. In the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Hence, claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

5. Resisting the claim made by claimants, Insurance Company has filed a detailed counter statement inter alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by claimants. They have also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. To prove their claim, on the side of claimants, son of the deceased/second appellant was examined as PW-1 and one Saravanan, eye- witness, was examined as PW-2 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. On the side of Insurance Company, one witness was examined as RW-1 and two exhibits were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.

7. On appreciation of materials and the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both vehicles and fixed 80% contributory negligence on the part of the Mahindra Logan Car and 20% on the two-wheeler. On coming to such a finding, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company, as insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,70,944/- as compensation. The break-up details are as follows:

The said sum of Rs.16,70,944/- was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

8. Learned counsel for claimants submits that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.28,510/- based on Ex.P10 – pay certificate. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged 52 at the time of accident, the Tribunal had chosen to apply multiplier 11'. However, the Tribunal decided to apply split multiplier method and rendered a finding that as the deceased was aged 52 at the time of accident, the remaining period of service would be 6 years and for the remaining 5 years, he would get pension more or less half of the salary. Accordingly, while calculating compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'