The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for dependents, loss of consortium, and the calculation of personal expenses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Salem, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2015.

2. The appellants as claimants/wife,children and mother of the deceased one Mr.Kanagaraj S/o Ramsamy Naidu, came forward with a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of said Kanagaraj in a road accident. The claimants alleged that the 1st respondent''s motorcycle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and consequently it hit the deceased''s moped causing fatal injuries resulting in the said Kanagaraj dying on the spot. It is the case of the claimants that Kanagaraj was 49 years of age at the time of his demise, earning Rs.25,000/- per month and that the claimants being dependants are entitled to just and fair compensation.

3. The insurance company/2nd respondent filed a counter denying the age of the deceased, his employment, factum of his earning Rs.25,000/- per month and also factum of dependancy of the claimants on the deceased Kanagaraj. It is also stated by the insurance company that the deceased was driving the moped without proper knowledge of traffic rules and regulations and the allegation in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent''s motorcycle rider is also denied.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant four witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked besides also Exs.X1 to X6 being marked as Court documents. On the side of the respondent/insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.

5. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, awarded a sum of Rs.28,35,150/- (Rupees Twenty eight lakhs thirty five thousand one hundred and fifty only) together with interest at 7.5% per annum with apportionment of the same amongst the claimants.

6. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants as appellants have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, mainly challenging the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased; contribution of the deceased at Rs.19,360/-; applying multiplier of 13; awarding lesser sum towards loss of consortium.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company.

8. The main thrust of the argument placed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased was unjust and improper considering the number of dependants viz., the claimants. The counsel also specifically pointed out that the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that third claimant was already married, which is without any basis or evidence available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company supported the judgment of the Tribunal and also pointed out that the Tribunal had erroneously recorded the age of the deceased as 40 and no interference is warranted from this Court and sought for confirmation of the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. The only moot point for determination in this appeal considering the arguments advanced on either side is as to whether the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is proper or not.

11. Admittedly, the claimants are wife, two daughters, son and mother of the deceased Kanagaraj. On a perusal of the claim petition itself it is seen that the second claimant is stated to have been married and has been described as wife of one Mayakannan aged 24 years. However, third claimant Suganya is described only as daughter of late Kanagaraj, aged 23 years. Thus, especially in the light of any con