The main legal point established is the liability for a motor accident and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2014, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

S. Sounthar, J.

1. Aggrieved by an award dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai, the appellant/Insurance company has come up with this appeal.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 being wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased filed Motor Accident Claim Petition in MCOP.No.373 of 2014, claiming compensation for the death of one Balamurugan. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and he held the position of Senior Executive, Accounts in Akshaya Private Limited, received a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. It was averred in the claim petition that on 28.12.2013, when the deceased was riding a motor cycle at the Junction of Velacherry Main Road and Kamalapuram Main Road from East to West, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN-22-CV-0240 owned by 4th respondent and insured with the appellant came in the opposite direction from West to East in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed compensation of Rs.1,22,00,000/- for the death of Balamurugan.

3. The 4th respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim was contested by the appellant/Insurance company by filing counter. In the counter, the appellant denied the averments in the claim petition, with regard to the manner of accident. The Insurance company averred that the insurer of the motor cycle of the deceased was a necessary party to this claim petition and hence, raised the plea of non-joinder. It was also claimed that the averments in the claim petition were exaggerated to create sympathy for getting higher award.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/widow of the deceased was examined as PW.1. One Leela Vinothan, eye witness to the occurrence and also complainant in FIR was examined as PW.2. The Officer working in the HR Department of employer of the deceased was examined as PW.3. The officer of the bank in which, the deceased had bank account was examined as PW.4. Exs.P1 to P27 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.

5. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle owned by 4th respondent. Since the said vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, the Tribunal held that the appellant and the 4th respondent were liable to pay compensation amount to the respondents 1 to 3 and fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs.55,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was at fault in fastening the liability on the driver of 4th respondent vehicle. He further submitted that the salary slip contains certain allowances like conveyance allowance and medical allowance which were personal in nature and the Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary into consideration without deducting those allowances, which were personal in nature. He submitted that such allowances cannot be construed as the loss to the family. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting an interest at the rate of 9% per annum having regard to the low inflation scenario at the date of acc