The court's decision emphasized the calculation of compensation based on the deceased's income, future prospects, and dependency, and the responsibility of the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, appeal against the award and decree dated 04.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Special District Judge, Erode.)

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the award dated 04.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Special District Judge, Erode, against the quantum of compensation.

2.The claimants have filed Cross Objection in Cross.Obj. No. 35 of 2021 against the disallowed portion of the award dated 04.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Special District Judge, Erode in awarding a compensation of Rs.1,75,50,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for the death of one Saravanan.

3.Claimants are the wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased Saravanan.

4.On 03.06.2015 the claimants 1 to 3 and the mother of the 1st claimant were travelling in a car bearing Reg. No.TN-36-M-0973 along with the deceased Saravanan from Chennai to Gobichettipalayam. While the said car was passing near Mungilpadi pirivu on the National Highway No.79, from Kallakurichi to Salem, another car bearing Reg. No.TN-30-AS-0175 being driven by the 1st respondent from Salem to Kallakurichi in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly crossed the median line and dashed against the car travelled by the deceased. In the said accident, the occupants of the car bearing Reg. No. TN-36-M-0973 and the driver sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Kallakurichi and on examination the Doctors found that Saravanan was dead. The other injured persons were given first aid in the Government Hospital and were taken to the Private Hospital at Salem for further treatment. Therefore, the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Saravanan.

5.The Tribunal factually found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No.TN-30-AS-0175 by its driver and, therefore, compensation as to be paid by the respondents 1 to 4 by directing the respondents 3 & 4 to deposit the said amount on behalf of the 1 and 2nd respondents.

6.The findings of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the appellant/Insurance Company by the Tribunal is not under challenge and, hence, it has become final.

7.The appellant/Insurance Company has only challenged the quantum of Compensation awarded by the Tribunal as execessive. On the other hand, the claimants have challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and, hence, the compensation should be enhanced.

8. P.W.1, wife of the deceased deposed that her husband was earning a sum of Rs.1,76,391/- per month, by working as a Software Engineer and was occupying a post of an Expert consultant in TATA Consultancy Service and was drawing an annual income of Rs.29,00,000/- at the time of his death. Considering his technology ability and dedication towards his employment he had been deputed assignments in foreign country projects. The deceased Saravanan was working for TCS Private Limited in U.S.A for more than four years. The claimants have relied upon Ex.P.13 Salary slip to prove the net salary received by the deceased at the time of the accident. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal failed to consider the documentary evidence produced by the claimants while arriving at lesser compensation. Hence, the compensation should be enhanced.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that, the claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of accident based on Ex.P.13-salary slip. The Tribunal ought to have considered the nature of employment and chances of promotion and increment in IT sectors