JUDGMENT :

(Through Video Conferencing)

The claimants are the appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. They are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge Court), Erode in M.C.O.P.No.842 of 2017.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has arrived at a total compensation of Rs.12,76,130/- and has deducted a sum of Rs.3,19,033/- towards 25% contributory negligence of the deceased Ramasamy and has awarded a sum of Rs.9,57,097/- (12,76,130 – 3,19,033) together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit along with proportionate cost to the appellants/claimants.

3. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 25% towards contributory negligence of the deceased Ramasamy and that the Tribunal has also wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased Ramasamy as Rs.9,000/- per month while arriving the above compensation. That apart, it is submitted that as per the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thangadurai and Another, in its Judgment dated 13.04.2018 passed in C.M.A.Nos.624 & 2413 of 2016, deduction towards contributory negligence can be made only on the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency and not on the other amounts awarded under the conventional heads. In this connection, a reference was made to paragraph No.10 of the said decision which is reproduced below:-

10. Since the claimant lost his avocation, multiplier method has to be adopted to calculate the loss of income. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), the appropriate multiplier is “14” for the age of 42 years. Therefore, loss of income comes to Rs.15,72,480/- (11700 x 12 x 14 x 80/100). Since 20% contributory negligence has been fixed on the claimant, 80% income alone has been taken.

4. On behalf of the second respondent Insurance Company, it is submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree is well reasoned and requires no interference as the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion and awarded a just compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. It is further submitted that the deceased was negligent at the time of the accident in as much as he crossed the road negligently and therefore became an accessory to his own death due to the accident. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident and the death.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Tribunal.

7. In my view, the Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion on facts based on the evidence, particularly oral evidence and the deposition, that the deceased was also negligent and contributed to the accident and his death. That being the case, I am inclined to uphold decision of the Tribunal that the deceased contributed to the accident and his death.

8. At the same time, the Tribunal has only considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. The deceased was said to be a Vendor of Tapioca selling it from place to place and was riding a moped bearing registration No.TN-36-S-1928 at the time of the accident. Considering the fact that the deceased was self employed and the vendor of Tapioca on the TVS Xl Super Heavy Duty, considering the accident is of the year 2017 and considering the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co. Lt