The court emphasized the importance of considering evidence and applying legal principles to determine liability and compensation in road accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2017, dated 16.11.2020, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2017, dated 07.02.2020, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai.

The insurance company is on Appeal challenging the awards made in M.C.O.P.Nos.75 and 76 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai.

2. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2017 are the parents and siblings of the deceased. They sought for compensation for the death of one Ramesh, aged about 28 years, in a road accident that occurred on 31.07.2016. According to the claimants, the deceased Ramesh was working as a Mason at Dubai and he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month. Contending that the family had lost its sole bread-winner, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.95,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs only). They would also contend that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab Van bearing Registration No.TN-21-AB-4413 owned by the sixth respondent and insured with the appellant-insurance company. They sought to make insurance company liable.

3. The insurance company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner as suggested by the claimants. A specific plea was raised by the insurance company that the deceased was not wearing helmet and he died of head injuries and injuries to vital organs. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. In M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2017, the deceased was a pillion rider in the vehicle that was ridden by D.Ramesh. The father, mother and brother of the deceased were the claimants. The deceased was aged about 19 years, at the time of the accident. Claiming that the deceased was doing vegetable vending and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.95,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs only).

5. The insurance company resisted the said claim also on the same grounds as in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2017.

6. In order to establish their case, the claimants examined the first petitioner as P.W.1 and one Sujin was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.29 were marked in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2017 and the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Sujin was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.39 were marked in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2017. Neither the owner of the Maxi Cab Van, nor the appellant-insurance company let in any evidence in support of their claim.

7. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence, particularly, the copy of the FIR, the observation mahazar, the rough sketch and the evidence of P.W.2, concluded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maxi Cab Van, consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant-insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants.

8. Since there was no evidence for the income as claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal applying the inflation index, fixed the monthly notional income at Rs.12,525/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Five only), adding 40% towards future prospects and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, applying the multiplier of 14', since the deceased was aged about 28 years, the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.18,93,888/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Eight only) in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2017 (C.M.A.(MD) No.844 of 2021 ).

9. As far as the M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2017 (C.M.A.(MD) No.294 of 2021) is concerned, the Tribunal took the same income, but applying the multiplier of 17', as