The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in cases of death, including the factors to be considered, deductions for personal expenses, and the appropriate multiplier, as per the principles laid down in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and 2013 (9) SCC 65.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgement in O.P.No.1033 of 2019 dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Chief Small Causes Court Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 05.01.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1033 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)

Common Judgment:

1. The petitioners as well as the Insurance Company have filed the appeals challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1033 of 2019.

2. The Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.1947 of 2021 and the petitioners have filed C.M.A.No.2734 of 2021. The brief facts which has given rise to these appeals are as follows.

3. The petitioners who are the parents of minor B.Susi have filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of their minor daughter in a road accident on 30.10.2018. The deceased minor was seven years of age and studying in the II standard. On 30.10.2018, when the minor child was walking on the platform on the Konnur High Road, a Car bearing Registration No.TN 01 AZ 9599 proceeding in the opposite direction hit the minor child on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver. The child was thrown out and sustained head injuries and multiple fatal injuries all over her body.

4. The petitioners would submit that their child was admitted in SIMS Hospital, Vadapalani, where she succumbed to injuries on the 01.11.2018.

5. The 1st respondent owner of the Car remained ex parte and it was only the Insurance Company that had filed its counter, in which they had contended that the driver of the Car was not responsible for the accident and further the petitioners were careless in allowing a minor child to walk alone on the main road.

6. That apart, the Insurance Company has submitted that the 1st respondent had done several alterations on the vehicle without getting prior approval of the Registration Authority and therefore there is a violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The Insurance Company would submit that therefore they are not liable to compensate the petitioners. The Insurance Company further submitted that the compensation claimed was on the higher side.

7. The Tribunal below by its order dated 05.01.2021 fastened the liability on the respondents 1 and 2 and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.5,05,000/-. The Tribunal has adopted an annual income of a sum of Rs.30,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 in keeping with the Second Schedule of the Act.

8. The petitioners were aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal and the Insurance Company has challenged the award stating that the Tribunal has erred in adopting a multiplier method for awarding compensation and the Tribunal ought to have awarded a lumpsum payment since the deceased is a minor who has not started contributing to the family income.

9. Mrs.R.RathnaThara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company would contend that if the multiplier method is adopted, then the deductions would automatically apply. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the post script to the Second Schedule, Schedule for compensation for third party fatal accidents / injury cases claims.

10. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the Judgement reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 – Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where the assessment is based on multiplier method deduction towards personal expenses has to necessarily be taken into account.

11. The learned counsel would also rely upon the Judgement reported in 2013 (9) SCC 65 – Re