The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of notional income, future prospects, and multiplier '13' to calculate compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Sub Court, Kulithalai, in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2014, dated 27.08.2018.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Sub Court, Kulithalai, in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2014, dated 27.08.2018. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2014, is as follows:-

On 04.07.2011, at about 6.00 pm., when the deceased – Pappan was riding his cycle along the left side mud road, an Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN-60-W-4802 came from behind the cycle, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the cycle and the deceased fell down. He was taken to Government hospital, Manapparai. But, he died on his way to the hospital. The deceased was a construction worker, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The petitioners are his dependants, they claim a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2014, is as follows:-

The first respondent driver drove the Indica Car in a slow and cautious manner, observing the road rules. It was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the Vaiyampatti National High Way Road and he invited the accident. F.I.R was wrongly registered against the driver of the Car. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The age, income, profession of the deceased are all denied. The claim is excessive.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2014, is as follows:-

The first respondent driver was not having valid driving licence. There is no permit or fitness certificate for the vehicle. The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. It was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road and he invited the accident. Contributory negligence ought to have been fixed against the deceased. The age, income and profession are all denied. The claim is excessive. Rate of interest as claimed by the petitioners is wrong.

5. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 3 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,21,500/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the claimants / appellants have filed this Appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was the only bread winner of the family. The deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- per month. But, the Tribunal fixed the income only at Rs.4,500/- per month. On the side of the appellants / claimants, it is stated that the award towards loss of consortium is very low. The Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects in fixing the loss of income and prayed the compensation to be enhanced.

7. P.W.2 was examined as an eye witness. P.W.2 has deposed that it was the car driver, who was rash and negligent. Copy of the F.I.R was marked as Ex.P1. There is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the respondents. There is no cross appeal or cross objection filed on the side of the insurance company. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. There is no dispute regarding the insurance policy. Hence, it is decided that the second respondent / insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

8. On the side of the appellants - claimants, it is stated that the deceased was working as a construction cooli worker and that he was earning Rs.200/- per month. Instead of f