The court emphasized the power of the courts to grant just compensation, more than the amount claimed by the claimants, and the consideration of the deceased's qualifications and future prospects in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2021 in M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 18.08.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal.

2. The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rinash, who died in the accident that took place on 01.01.2017.

3. According to the appellants, on the date of accident i.e., on 01.01.2017 at about 12.30 a.m., while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 88 Y 3771, the driver of the car belonging to the 1st respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules, dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased; due to the said impact, the deceased sufferred injuries and succumbed to it; that the deceased, who was aged 27 years, was an engineering graduate and working as a Manager in Sri Murugan Transports; and that he was a sole bread winner of his family and hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.40 lakhs as compensation.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the car, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and hence, the learned counsel for the appellant has made an endorsement to dispense with the notice to the first respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the third respondent was originally the claimant and since no amount was awarded in her favour, notice to the 3rd respondent may be dispensed with and he has made an endorsement to that effect also.

5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the car belonging to the first respondent and that in any case the deceased was also responsible for an accident. In any event, the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the first respondent''s vehicle and directed the second respondent being the insurer of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.23,43,085/- as compensation to the appellants and dismissed the claim petition of the 3rd respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal having held that the first respondent was guilty of negligence, the second respondent was liable to pay the compensation and that the deceased was an engineering graduate, ought to have fixed his monthly income at Rs.18,000/- as claimed by the appellants. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon''ble Division Bench reported in 2021 (1) TNMAC 805 (DB) (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. A.Senthilkumar and another) and 2016 (2) TNMAC 424 (DB) (S.Saraswathy and another Vs. A.Elumalai and Oriental Insurance Company) and prayed for enhancement.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/ Insurance Company submitted that