The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of contributory negligence in determining compensation for dependents of a deceased in a motor vehicle accident, as well as the mandatory requirement of wearing a helmet.

JUDGMENT :

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal as compensation to the dependents of the deceased Karuppasamy.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 19.08.2017 at about 02.00 p.m., near Aruppukottai-Sayalgudi Road, near Mandapasalai Petrol Bunk, while the deceased Karuppasamy was riding his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-AH-8833 and his brother Naganathan along with his relative in another two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-AE-2598 returning home after their job, a van bearing Registration No.TN-22- K-8842 driven by its driver Nagaraj, owned by the 10th respondent herein, who is the first respondent in the claim petition, rash and negligently ahead of two two-wheelers stopped without any signal and therefore, the said Karuppasamy had driven his two-wheeler and dashed behind the van and sustained serious head injury. His brother who was following him in another two-wheeler, took him to a private hospital. The injured was referred to Arupukkottai Government Hospital for further treatment and on reference, he was shifted to Velammal Hospital, Madurai. However, his health got further deteriorated, hence he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Inspite of taking treatment at various hospitals, he succumbed to the injury on 21.08.2017 at about 09.30 p.m. The claim petition against the Van owner and its insurer was filed by the wife, four children and mother of the deceased alleging that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Van driver. The Van being insured with the second respondent/the appellant herein, is liable to compensate. Since, at the time of accidental death, the deceased was aged about 43 years, earning Rs.60,000/- per month. Due to his sudden demise, they have lost their moral and economical dependency, compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- was sought.

3. The Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit stating that the accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, who had no driving licence and also he was not wearing helmet, which is mandatory. Further, there is no sufficient proof for the income.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence let in by the claimants and the 30 documents marked as exhibits, held that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased Karuppasamy. At the time of his death, the deceased Karuppasamy was running a Welding shop and being a skilled worker his notional income was fixed at Rs.12,500/- per month. After adding 25% towards furture prospects, following the decision in 2009(2)TN MAC 1 (SC) Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi], the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,68,750/- towards loss of dependency after the standard deduction and awarding compensation under other non-conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium as prescribed by the Supreme Court under 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi], a total sum of Rs.21,58,750/- was awarded.

5. The Tribunal has directed to apportion the awarded amount as below:- In respect of the first petitioner/wife Rs.10,00,000/-, in respect of the petitioners 2 to 4 Rs.3,50,000/- each and in respect of fifth petitioner Rs.1,08,750/-.

6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of award and the fixation of entire negligence on the part of the insured vehicle driver, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

7. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents.

8. On a perusal of the records, this Court finds that as far as the negligence is concerned, though it was canvassed by the counsel for the appellant that the deceased had not maintained 10 ft. distance between the vehicle going ahead, which is prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Rules and he was not wearing hel