The court emphasized the importance of considering the deceased's notional income and apportioning negligence based on the circumstances of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

PRAYER: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 358 of 2017, dated 17.04.2021, on the file of the Principal District Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.

1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of M.C.O.P. No. 358 of 2017, a claim petition lodged by the respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking compensation for the death of their 19 year old son Andi Shanmugavel, who was the student of Engineering.

2. According to the petitioners, the deceased Andi Shanmugavel was travelling as a pillion rider in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-59-BB-5355, which was driven by his friend and as they were about to enter the college, which was on the right side of the four lane Highway, Madurai - Aruppukottai road, the car bearing Registration No. TN-39-AT-6565 which came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the deceased Andi Shanmugam was thrown off the bike, suffered head injury and died on the spot.

3. The car was insured with the appellant in C.M.A. (MD) No. 142 of 2022. As the insurer of the car, the claim was made against the appellant in C.M.A. (MD) No. 142 of 2022. The owner of the two-wheeler and insurer of the two-wheeler were also made parties as respondents 4 and 5/respondents 3 and

4. The driver cum owner of the car was the third respondent/first respondent. 4. The insurer of the car, namely, the second respondent resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants. It was contended that the negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler, caused the accident. According to the second respondent - insurance company, the two-wheeler took a sudden turn to enter the College in a four lane road and hit the car.

5. The insurer of the two-wheeler, namely, the fourth respondent before the Tribunal would contend that it was the negligence on the part of the driver of the car, which caused the accident. Both the insurance companies contended that the quantum of compensation claimed at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakh only) is excessive.

6. At trial, the first claimant was examined as PW-1 and one Karthik, son of Rajendran, an eye witness was examined as PW-2. Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Karthik, son of Murugan was examined as RW-1 and one Shanmugasundaram and Rajasimman were examined as RW-2 and RW-3. Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence found that it was the negligence on the part of the driver of the car that caused the accident. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the First Information Report (FIR) and the final report that was filed against the driver of the car.

8. On quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly total income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only), added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, the deceased being a bachelor, applied the multiplier of 18 and arrived at a sum of Rs. 14,58,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand only) as loss of dependency. It also awarded the conventional damages as follows:

In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,48,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh and Fourty Eight Thousand only) as compensation.

9. Terming the quantum of compensation as meagre, the claimants are on appeal seeking enhancement in C.M.A. (MD) No. 793 of 2021. The second respondent-insurance company has come up with the appeal in C.M.A. (MD) No. 142 of 2022, contending tha