The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in modifying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Sivakasi made in M.C.O.P.no.148 of 2012 dated 20.04.2016.)

Challenging the negligence as well as the quantum fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2012, dated 20.04.2016, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are as follows:

On 07.01.2010 at about 18.00 hours, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-67-Y-6085 with his friend and he stopped his motorcycle behind the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-69-Y-7966. At the time, the mini bus bearing registration No.TN-69-W-0561 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the way to hospital. FIR was also registered against the offending vehicle.

(ii) The first claimant is the wife of the deceased. The claimants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. The deceased was working as a Sales Manger and earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants have filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The Insurance Company before the Tribunal took a stand that the deceased without noticing the vehicle coming behind him, suddenly had crossed the road and dashed against the vehicle. Further, the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle. Hence, opposed the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked.

6. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal found that only the driver of the offending vehicle/mini bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and awarded the compensation as follows:

Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that only the deceased was careless in riding the motorcycle. But, the Tribunal had erred in fixing the liability on the part of the driver of the bus. That apart, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others [CDJ 2017 SCC 1220], only a sum of Rs.40,000/- alone has to be given under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, but the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakhs to the claimants under the said heads and the same has to be reduced. He would further submit that the Tribunal had also erred in fixing the interest at the rate of 9%.

8. In view of the above submission, now the points arise for consideration in this appeal are:

(a) whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the liability on the part of the driver of the appellant vehicle

(b) Whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-?

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

10. The evidence available on record clearly establishes the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the bus. FI