The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the precedent set in the case of National Insurance Co. vs Pranay Sethi and others, emphasizing the reasonableness of the Tribunal's decision in assessing negligence and compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to allow this appeal, setaside the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2014 dated 07.07.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Madurai.)

1. This appeal is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2014 dated 07.07.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Madurai. The appellant herein is the respondent. The respondents herein are the claimants in the claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

On 11.08.2013, at about 9.20 a.m., the deceased Muniyandi travelled as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 58 M 8532 which was driven by its driver in a slow and cautious manner along the left side of the Santhaipettai - Tirupparankundram Road, near Thavittusanthai bus stop. At that time, a bus bearing registration number TN 58 N 1279 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler. The deceased sustained injury. He was taken to the Apollo hospital and was admitted as an inpatient from 11.08.2013 and he died on 25.08.2013. The deceased was working as a Superintendent in Ex-Servicemen Corporation Limited and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Claimants are his dependants and they pray a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent is as follows:

The bus was driven in a slow and cautious manner observing all the road Rules. The rider of the two wheeler tried to overtake the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the earth wire of an electricity post. On that effect, he dashed against the back side portion of the bus and he invited the accident. The rider of the two wheeler was not wearing helmet. The owner of the two wheeler and the insurance company are necessary parties. The age, income and profession of the deceased are to be proved.

4. Four (4) witnesses were examined and seven (7) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. One (1) witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. Five(5) documents were marked as witness documents. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,37,328/- as compensation. After deducting 25% towards contributory negligence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,27,996/- as compensation for the claimants.

5. Against the order, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal failed to fix the entire negligence on the rider of the two wheeler and on the pillion rider who travelled without wearing helmet. The rider of the two wheeler was not having license and it was the rider of the two wheeler who tried to over take the bus and hit against the rear portion of the bus. The award amount is exorbitant. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,200/- is excessive. The Tribunal awarded 15% future prospects which is unnecessary. The deduction should be 1/3. The Tribunal is wrong in deducting 1/5th of the income. Adopting multiplier 11 is wrong. Accordingly Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards transport expenses are all excessive.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the accident took place on 11.08.2013 and that the deceased Muniyandi was aged about 51 years. The Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence at 25% which is very low. The Tribunal calculated the monthly income under two various heads which is unnecessary. It is stated that the deceased was working as a Superintendent in the Ex-Servicemen Corporation Limited and was earning Rs.10,000/- as income and he was earning Rs.10,000/- as Ex-Serviceman pension. P.W.3 has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.12,080/- as pension. Ex.P.5 is the pension certificate. Ex.A7 is the document to prove that the deceased was working in Army. The deceased was earning Rs.9,218/- as salar