The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the application of relevant case laws in deciding the appeal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.1468 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.)

1. The respondents No.3 to 5 have filed the appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed in MC.O.P.No.1468 of 2002 on 23.12.2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem for enhancement of compensation.

2. Originally, the claim petition was filed by one Tmt.Kanagamani along with his minor son Mohanraj and mother of the deceased Kumar, Tmt.Marayee against the owner of the lorry, its insurer and against the present appellants herein under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of Kumar during the road accident that occurred on 01.05.2002.

3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides arguments and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the claimants and respondents 3 and 5 in the claim petition. The claim was dismissed as against the 4th respondent/Ms.Uma.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/respondents Shri.K.Kuppusamy, would vehemently argue that the deceased was working as a mason and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. Future prospects of 40% may be awarded for the purpose of calculating the income of the deceased. As regards 1/3rd deduction of the income may be taken for calculation of loss of dependency and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent/Insurance Company would strenuously contend that the 1st appellant not being the wife of the deceased Kumar cannot maintain the appeal and prayed for to dismiss the appeal.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

7. This appeal is preferred only for enhancement of compensation and the apportionment done by the Tribunal is not challenged.

8. The case of the claimants is that the husband of the 1st claimant, Kumar on 01.05.2002 at about 4 p.m., while he was riding his bicycle near Sreenivasa Park along the market road, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-57-Z-5140 which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a great speed, dashed against the said Kumar, by which his head got crushed and he died on the spot, is not in dispute.

9. The claim petition was filed by one Smt.Kanagamani, wife of Kumar along with her minor son and mother-in-law as against the owner and insurer of the erred vehicle as the respondents 1 and 2 and one Smt.Sarasu and her children, Ms.Uma and minor Jayaseelan have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 5.

10. On a careful perusal of the judgment, the Tribunal has discussed about the marriage of Kumar and who is the legally wedded wife and other related issues. On the side of the claimants as well as on the side of the respondents No.3 to 5, oral and documentary evidences have been let in. Relying upon the said details, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the 1st claimant Kanagamani is the legally wedded wife of Kumar. That apart, the 1st claimant has not preferred any appeal against granting of compensation in favour of the respondents No.3 and 5 namely Sarasu and minor Jayaseelan. Therefore, the maintainability issue raised by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent/Insurance Company is not maintainable in law and stands rejected.

11. It is the evidence of PW1 that the deceased Kumar was working as a mason and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The accident had taken place on 01.05.2002. Therefore, this Court deems fit to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.3,400/- p.m. With regard to the age of the deceased, the only document which is marked as Ex.P2-Post-Mortem Certificate, wherein his age is