Point of law: deceased was employed as Assistant Administrative Officer in Agricultural Department and was earning an income of Rs.17,529/- per month, which is evidenced by Exs.P.6 and P.7 Salary Certificates. From a perusal of Ex.P.6, it could be seen that a sum of Rs.255/- is deducted compulsorily from the salary. Therefore, the deceased was getting a net monthly income of Rs.17,274/-. The age of the deceased on the date of accident was 57 years and the multiplier to be adopted is 8, are not in dispute.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.09.2014 and made in M.C.O.P.No.384 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims (Sub-Court), Kulithalai.)

1. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. Challenging the award, dated 25.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.384 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Kulithalai, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is filed.

2. In the said M.C.O.P, the claimants, who are the respondents 1 to 4 herein, have made the claim as compensation for the death of one Sakthivel, who died in the accident that occurred on 28.03.2011. The respondents 1 to 4 are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.

3. The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 28.03.2011, when the deceased-Sakthivel was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 39 K 2152, on the extreme left side of the road from Perambalur to Duraiyur, from east to west, near Krishna Petrol Bunk, Thuraiyur, a Taurus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 25 V 1314, belonged to the fifth respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company was parked in the above mentioned road without any indicating lights in the back side of the lorry and making any signal and caution. Hence, the deceased Sakthivel dashed behind the Taurus Lorry and was thrown away and sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Thuraiyur for treatment, where first aid was given, then he was taken to KMC Hospital, Trichy and treatment was given till his death on 02.04.2011. In this regard, F.I.R was registered against the Driver of the Taurus Lorry in Crime No.145 of 2011 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C on the file of Thuraiyur Police Station. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

4. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant - Insurance Company has filed counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the reckless act of the deceased and at the time of accident, the deceased and the Driver of the Lorry were not having proper Driving Licence and the quantum of compensation claimed by Claimants is highly excessive and without any basis.

5. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased – Alli was examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of the Insurance Company, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the first respondent that the deceased sustained injuries and due to the impact, he died. The Tribunal further held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,05,960/- under various heads.

7. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, both on negligence and quantum, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company argued on the point of negligence, a perusal of the award would show that after considering the evidence, the Tribunal had come to the right conclusion that the Driver of the Taurus Lorry was responsible for the accident and directed the appellant/insurer to pay compensation. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the findings on the negligence aspect.

10. With regard to quantum, learned counsel appearing for the appellan