The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, including the calculation of multipliers and enhancements towards future prospects based on the age and income of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.1647 of 2018, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.1647 of 2018, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.1647 of 2018, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one M.Kittan who died in the accident that took place on 23.07.2018.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident, at about 9.00 p.m., when the deceased M.Kittan was walking at Kamanaickenpalayam to Karadivavi road, near Pulliyampatti Pirivu, from South to North direction observing all the traffic rules and regulations, the 5th respondent rode the Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-CJ-7223 in the said road in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the deceased M.Kittan and caused the accident. In the accident, the said M.Kittan sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to Hospital. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the 5th respondent/rider of the Pulsar Motorcycle and hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the 5th respondent and appellant- Insurance Company as rider-cum-owner and insurer of the Pulsar Motorcycle respectively.

4. The 5th respondent, rider-cum-owner of the Pulsar Motorcycle, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant, insurer of the Pulsar Motorcycle, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition, including involvement of Pulsar Motorcycle and occurrence of alleged accident. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased M.Kittan. The 5th respondent violated policy conditions by riding the vehicle which was only temporarily registered, without possessing vaild driving license. For such violation of policy conditions, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the 5th respondent. In any event, the respondents 1 to 4 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased M.Kittan to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by 5th respondent/rider of the Pulsar Motorcycle and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.25,27,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

8. Against the said award of the Tribunal dated 26.08.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.1647 of 2018, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. Though the appellant-Insurance Company raised various grounds with regard to negligence, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted her arguments only with regard to multiplier applied and 40% enhancement granted towards future prospects. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal having rightly held that the deceased M.Kittan has completed 40 years at the time of accident, erroneously applied the multiplier 15' instead of correct multiplier 14' and erroneously granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects instead of granting only 25%, in awarding