The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence in determining compensation for motor accident claims, and the application of future prospects and personal expenses in modifying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Vignesh, who died in the accident that took place on 07.10.2015.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, on 07.10.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased Vignesh was walking on the Chikkathogur road in front of Janapriya Sweet Palace, Bangalore City, Karnataka, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA 03 MA 8413, drove the car from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, endangering public safety and dashed against the said Vignesh and caused the accident. Immediately after the accident, the said Vignesh was taken to Pralaksha Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter he was referred to Xcellent Care Hospital, Chennai. Inspite of medical treatment, the said Vignesh succumbed to injuries on 25.10.2015. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents 4, 5 and appellant.

4. The respondents 4 & 5, being the owners of the car remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company, the insurer of the car filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 3. The appellant denied the validity of vehicle records, driving license of the driver of the car and the insurance coverage of the car at the time of accident. The appellant-Insurance Company stated that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the car and the accident has occurred only due to negligent act of the deceased. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined himself as P.W.1, one Rajmahandhar, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. 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 driving by the driver of the car belonging to respondents 4 & 5 and directed the appellant, being the insurer of the car to pay a sum of Rs.41,90,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 & 2 and dismissed the claim petition as against the 3rd respondent.

8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 27.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, the appellant – Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal without any basis, erroneously fixed a sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought not to have fixed more than a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal erroneously granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. After the completion of his studies, the deceased did not have employment for one year. The