The main legal point established is the correct determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the deceased's income and future prospects.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation in the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.269 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court at Sathyamangalam, Erode District.)

1. This present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is at the instance of the claimants, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sathyamangalam in M.C.O.P.No.269 of 2014 in and by judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018, awarding a sum of Rs.7,82,400/- together with interest at 7% per annum.

2. The brief facts set out in the claim petition are as hereunder:

The appellants before this Court as appellants, wife and father of the deceased, one, Velusamy, S/o Mahali who died in a road accident on 04.06.2014 sought for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that late Velusamy was running a provision stores and was earning not less than Rs.20,000/- per month and that the 1st respondent/State Transport Corporation bus driven in a rash and negligent manner and that too at high speed and without using horn hit the deceased motor cycle resulting in grievous injuries and also died on the spot.

3. The 2nd respondent/State Transport Corporation filed a counter denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent''s driver. In the said counter, it is also contended that the deceased was not earning Rs.20,000/- per month and only Rs.15,000/- ought to be taken towards notional income as per the II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company also denied the compensation claimed under various heads and put the claimants to strict proof of such claims.

4. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Murugesan was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs.7,82,000/-, with each of the claimants being entitled to 50%, being wife and father of the deceased.

6. Aggrieved by the said award the claimants as appellants are before this Court.

7. The main grounds of challenge to the award are that the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- is very low and erroneous and that future prospects have not been taken into account at all, considering the deceased was only aged 41 years. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport to hospital. On these grounds, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal was sought to be modified.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have made their rival submissions and in so far as applying the multiplier of 14, both the learned counsel fairly conceded that even though there was a discrepancy with regard to the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 14 was rightly adopted.

9. In so far as deduction towards personal expenses, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, admittedly the number of dependants being two i.e., wife and father of the deceased, 1/3rd should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, this Court finds that the Tribunal has deducted ½ which is clearly erroneous and not in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in number of cases, which have been repeatedly followed by this Hon''ble Court as well.

10. In so far as the income of the deceased, this Court finds that the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month, even though it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.20,000/- per month. Admittedly, the accident was in the year 2014. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.Shiva Kumar vs. The Managing Director, BMTC, reported in 2017(1) TNMAC 598 (SC) held, while deciding the income of a pain