JUDGMENT :

(Through Video Conferencing)

Insurance Company is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the Court of Small Causes, Chennai), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.728 of 2014.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,06,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date on which the claim petition was taken on file till the date of deposit to the first to third respondents.

3. The first to third respondents are the dependents of the deceased S.Narayanan who died in a motor accident. On 03.01.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding a Bi-Cycle on the ECR Road, a Share Auto bearing registration No.TN-19-C-9570 driven by its driver belonging to the first respondent insured with the appellant Insurance Company allegedly came behind the Bi-Cycle and hit the deceased, as result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later died at Govt. Hospital. Therefore, the first to third respondents filed the above claim petition, on which, the aforesaid compensation has been awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

4. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is questioned in this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the age of the deceased as 50 years contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that as per Ex.P-2 Copy of the Ration Card, the age of the deceased was 36 years in 2005. Therefore, at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased should be around 56 years in 2014. The Tribunal has, on the other hand, relied upon the age given in the death report and death certificate which have been marked as Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 respectively. It is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier of 13 applicable to the age of 50 years.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first to third respondents submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation. The learned counsel for the first to third respondents further submitted that the Tribunal has considered a very low income of Rs.9,000/- to arrive at the above compensation. The learned counsel for the first to third respondents submitted that though there are some mistakes in the compensation awarded in the impugned Judgment and Decree, nevertheless, on the over all amount awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation and therefore, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the first to third respondents. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Tribunal, the evidences on record and the exhibits marked before the Tribunal.

7. After considering the evidence on record, in my view, the Tribunal has wrongly considered the age of the deceased as 50 years based on the Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 death report and death certificate.

8. The Exhibit P2 Copy of Ration Card shows that the age of the first respondent/first claimant was 34 years when the card was issued in the year 2005 which more or less confirms the correct age of the first respondent / first claimant. Ex.P8 and P11 also show that the date of the birth of the first respondent / first claimant is 01.01.1973. Therefore, the age of the first respondent / first claimant stands confirmed as per these Exhibits.

9. Similarly, age of the second and third respondents, namely the second and third claimants given as 9 and 4 years in Ex.P2 Ration Card Copy respectively also cannot be questioned since Exs.P5, P10, P12 & P13 confirm the age of them as given in Ex.P2 Ration Card Copy when the card was issued.

10. Only Ex.P6 Photo Pass for Non-Dept Personnel gives the age of the deceased as 40 years as on 17.12.2013 which has been issued wi