The court considered the actual salary and future prospects of the deceased to calculate the compensation amount, leading to an enhancement of the awarded sum.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act 54 of 1994 to set aside the order and decreetal order made in M.C.O.P.No.2010 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum  Essential Commodities Act, Salem dated 28.02.2017 and for enhancement of compensation.)

1. The claimants filed the above appeals seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Additional District and Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.2010 of 2014.

2. The appellants had filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for the death of one Shaeik Magasook Rahman, the husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant and the son of appellants 3 and 4. The claimants have sought a compensation for a sum of Rs.97,00,000/-.

3. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of his death and he was B.E. (Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering), Computer Engineer employed with M/s.Nour India Engineers Private India Limited on a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. On 01.11.2014, he was travelling along with his friends in two-wheeler Hero Honda Unicorn bearing registration No.TN19K5427, and around 2.15P.M., when they were travelling on the OMR Road, a Volks Wagen car bearing registration No.TN.09BL1919 hit the two-wheeler in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the impact the deceased was thrown out and had sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was rushed to the Hospital, but unfortunately within four days of his admission, he had passed away.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 did not enter appearance and it was the third respondent/Insurance Company which had contested the claim. They had filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition and put the appellants to strict proof of their contentions.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal had passed an award on 28.02.2017, holding the driver of the first respondent's vehicle to be exclusively responsible for accident on account of the rash driving. Ultimately, a sum of Rs.23,67,054/- was awarded. Though the salary certificate was produced to show the income of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs.8,000/- and added future prospects at 50% and arrived at a loss of income of Rs.18,36,000/-. The appellants are aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has adopted a notional income of Rs.8,000/-, when they had produced the salary certificate.

6. It is the contention of the appellant that they have produced salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P.30 proving the fact that the deceased was a qualified Computer Engineer having passed B.E. (Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering).

7. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials on record.

8. As pointed out, the deceased was a Computer Engineer and Ex.P.30, would show the salary earned by the deceased prior to his death. Therefore, the income to be adopted for calculating a loss of income is enhanced to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, the future prospect is reduced to 40%. Therefore, the monthly income would come to a sum of Rs.21,000/-. If the above amount is taken into consideration the annual income would be a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-. Out of this 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the amount that is available to the family is a sum of Rs.1,89,000/-. The appropriate multiplier to be adopted 17. Therefore, amount under the head of loss of income would be the sum of Rs.32,13,000/-. A sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses, which is reduced to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation now stands enhanced to a sum of Rs.36,64,054/-. The award is enhanced by a sum of Rs.12,97,000/-.