The court applied legal precedents to confirm the accident's cause and calculate the compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the award, dated 24.01.2017, passed in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.)

1. The claim petitioners are the appellants herein seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The factum of the accident, the manner of the accident, rash andnegligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which is insured with the second respondent herein are not disputed in this appeal and hence, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard is here by confirmed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants / claim petitioners would contend that the notional income arrived at by the Tribunal is erroneous and as per the decision rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. PranaySethi and Others reported in 2017(16) SCC 680, the claim petitioners areentitled to 50% towards future prospects and deduction of 1/3 ought to have been 1/4 and consortium has to be granted.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent /Insurance Company would contend that the rash and negligence on thepart of the deceased is not considered by the Tribunal.

6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the said issue raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company.

7. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal challenging the manner of accident or finding of the Tribunal that the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal has rendered a finding that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent herein, which is insured with the second respondent herein.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company would contend that the accident is invited by the deceased himself. The first claim petitioner is examined herself as P.W.1 and the other co-rider of the two wheeler is examined as P.W.2 and he has deposed about the manner of the accidnet. R.W.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. It remains to be stated that Ex.P.1 First Information Report is filed against P.W.1 and after taking note of the admissions in the cross-examination of R.W.1, I have no hesitation to hold that this description of manner of the accident is only a self-serving statement in order to save his skin from the criminal prosecution. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W.2 is found to be reliable and trustworthy, besides he is also co-injured in the accident and hence, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 and accepted the same and has recorded the reason for rejecting the evidenc of R.W.1. The finding of the Tribunal that accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the first respondent is well-considered and well-merited,does not require any interference from this Court in the absence of any irregularity or illegality. The Tribunal has also recorded reasons fordisbeliving R.W.1 that is discussed supra and hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the first respondent vehicle, is hereby confirmed, for different reasoning as extracted supra. Consequently, the plea of the learned counsel for the second respondent counsel is hereby negatived.

9. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the parents along with the widow and minor daughter. The deceased is aged about 28years at the time of accident. He is said to have been working in Raju Spinning Mills at Rajapalayam. To substantiate the said plea, they have filed Ex.P8, S.S.L.C. Certificate. B.Sc. and M.Sc. Certificates are marked as Ex.P.15