The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the impleading of legal representatives of the deceased and the calculation of compensation for loss of dependency, future prospects, and consortium.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.371 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Rasipuram.)

1. Not being satisfied by the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.371 of 2019 on 24.03.2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Rasipuram, the legal heirs namely, the wife, two married daughters Smt. Punitha Raja and Kalaiselvi Mani and two sons of the deceased V.Chandrasekaran have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2.The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, R/W Rule 3 of TNMACT Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in the road accident that occurred on 30.09.2019.

3.The learned Tribunal, after hearing both sides arguments and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence has passed an award for a sum of Rs.7,58,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4.Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would vehemently argue that the deceased V.Chandrasekaran was an Agriculturist as well as working as Tapioca Broker and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month is very less. He would also further contend that no amount is awarded for loss of filial consortium. He would fairly concede that Rs.30,000/- granted for loss of spouse has to be set aside as Rs.40,000/- is granted for loss of consortium.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company would strenuously contend that no age proof for the deceased was filed, except the Post mortem certificate – Ex.P3. It is the evidence of P.W.1 during his cross examination that though the Aadhar Card of the deceased is available, the said document was not filed and he would stress upon that adverse inference be drawn for not production of the said document. He would also point out that P.W.1 stated that difference of age between his father and mother was 5 years and prayed for reducing the compensation.

6.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him, either in person or through counsel.

7.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company and perused the entire materials available on record.

8.The wife, two married daughters and two sons, who are aged about 31 and 30 years respectively have filed the claim petition. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company would contend that all the claimants are not dependants of the deceased – their father.

9.In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which speaks about impleading of legal representatives of the deceased. For better understanding, Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is extracted hereunder:

“166. Application for compensation. – (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 may be made – (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be :

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the applica