The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the deceased's monthly pension and the entitlement of claimants with independent income in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 21.12.2018, in M.C.O.P. No.1207 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to enhance the compensation amount in M.C.O.P. No.1207 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 21.12.2018. 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.1207 of 2015, is as follows:-

On 15.06.2015, at about 8.00 pm., when the deceased - Rajalingam and his relatives were standing on the extreme left side of the road, near Musiri Kalappu Colony, a Honda Shine two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48-AX-0285 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries and he was taken to L.G.Hospital, Musiri. After getting first aid, he was referred to Government Hospital, Musiri, but, on his way to Hospital, he died. The accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver. The deceased was a retired Veterinary and Live stock Supervisor and he was receiving Rs.21,989/- as monthly pension. The petitioners are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1207 of 2015, is as follows:-

The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. It was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road, without adhering the traffic. The first respondent was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and there was violation of policy conditions. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Age, occupation and income of the deceased are are denied. The claimants are not the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. The claim is excessive.

4. One (1) witness was examined and 5 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. Two (2) witnesses were examined and One (1) document was marked on the side of the respondents. One document was marked as witness documents-Ex.X1. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the claimants – appellants have filed this Appeal, for enhancement of compensation, on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has wrongly come to a conclusion that the appellants have not filed sufficient documents to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has failed to consider Ex.P3-passbook of the deceased, wherein, the pension is deposited monthly. The Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to income, when there is no contra evidence to disprove the same.

6. On the side of the appellants-claimants, it is stated that the Tribunal has failed to consider that a sum of Rs.21,361/- per month was credited to the account of the deceased by way of E.C.S. The order for isssuance of gratuity was marked and the passbook denoting the deposit of pension through E.C.S. was marked and accordingly, the income has to be enhanced.

7. On the side of the second respondent/Insurance Company, it is stated that no official witness was examined on the side of the claimants to prove the pension details. Only P.W.1 alone was examined. It is further stated that all the claimants are majors and they were not the dependants of the deceased and they are not entitled to claim compensation.

8. On the side of the appellants - claimants, it is stated that persons, who are having independant income can also claim compensation. A judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, reported in 2017-ACJ-1784 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Paramjit Singh and others), wherein, it has held as follows:-

“