The main legal point established is the determination of compensation in motor accident cases, considering factors such as negligence, actual income of the deceased, and contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 16th February, 2021 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 6528 of 2014, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No. 1, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

1. These appeals are by the Claimants and the Insurance Company respectively, challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No. 1, Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No. 6528/2014 dated 16.02.2021 granting a sum of Rs.86,85,000/- as compensation for the death of one G. Saravanan in a road accident that occurred on 19.06.2014 at about 07.00 a.m.

2. According to the claimants, while the deceased was riding a Two Wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-05-AT-1443 on Paper Mill Road from East to West direction, a Van bearing Registration No. TN-20-BK-3120 belonging to M/s. Annamalai Enterprises, the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 2094/2021 and 5th respondent in C.M.A. No. 2911/2021, insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2nd respondent in C.M.A. No. 2094/2021 and appellant in C.M.A. No. 2911/2021 linked with a concrete mixer, came from behind and dashed against him. As a result of the accident, the driver of the motor cycle fell down and the van ran over his head resulting his instantaneous death. Contending that the deceased was earning around Rs.67,000/- p.m. as Project Leader in a Software company the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that there was a breach of policy condition in as much as a concrete mixer was attached with the Van. It is his further contention that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased since he attempted to overtake the vehicle on the left side. Non-wearing of a helmet was also made a ground to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased. The income particulars were denied and the total compensation claim was termed as excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant was examined as PW-1. Two eye-witnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-4 and an Officer attached with the employer of the deceased was examined as PW-3. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 were marked. On the side of the respondent-Insurance Company, the Special Sub-Inspector, Chintadripet Traffic Investigation Wing, Chennai was examined as RW-1 and one Mr. N. Ganesh, Executive-Legal of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-2. Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked.

5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. To reach the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the evidences of two eye-witnesses and the F.I.R. that was marked as Ex.P.1. The fact that no attempt was made by the Insurance Company to examine the driver of the Van was also taken as a ground by the Tribunal in support of its conclusion that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the van. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- p.m. though there was evidence in the form of salary certifiate to show that the deceased was drawing a much higher income. The Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 25% towards personal expenditure and adopted the multiplier of 15 to arrive at a total loss of dependency at Rs.94,50,000/-. Since the deceased was not wearing the helmet, the Tribunal deducted 10% towards contributory negligence and after adding conventional damages towards loss of Consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, the Tribunal fixed out the compensation at Rs.86,85,000/-. Hence these appeals.

6. We have heard Ms. Ramya V. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Notice to the owner of the Lorry is dispensed with since he had remained absent before the Tribunal.