The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to prove their dependency and legal heirship in fatal accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge of Aruppukottai in M.C.O.P.No.44 of 2014 dated 11.11.2016.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree on certain counts passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Aruppukottai, in M.C.O.P.No.44 of 2014 dated 11.11.2016 by the appellant/2nd respondent/insurance company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.44 of 2014.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Claim Petition is as follows:-

This is a fatal case. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased and the third petitioner is the sister of the deceased. The deceased Ramamoorthy was a Poojari. On 23.04.2012, at about 07.15 a.m., along the Madurai - Thirumangalam road near Kappaloor Salaiyammal temple, while the deceased Ramamoorthy travelled as a pillion rider in TVS XL bearing registration No.TN-58-Z-3492, which was driven by one Ganesh. Due to the over speed of the said vehicle, the said Ganesh, who was riding the motorcycle, was not able to control the vehicle and the vehicle fell into a pit. As the result of which, both of them fell down and the deceased Ramamoorthy sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Thirumangalam Government Hospital in 108 ambulance. Thereafter, he was further sent to Rajaji Medical Hospital for better treatment and thereafter, he was further admitted in Apollo Hospital and he was treated as in patient till 01.05.2012 and thereafter, he died on the same day at 07.00 p.m. Seeking a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, the petitioners have filed the claim petition.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the motor cycle TVS XL bearing registration No.TN-58-Z-3492 and the second respondent is the insurance company, with which the vehicle was insured. The second respondent has filed a counter refuting all the allegations set forth in the claim petition.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed four issues. Two witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the petitioners and 7 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. Two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W. 2 were examined on the side of the respondents and five documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. The 1st respondent was called absent and set exparte. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of arguments submitted by respective parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to conclude that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent.

6. On the basis of the post morterm certificate marked as Ex.P5, the learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased was 45 years old. Though it was claimed by the petitioners that the deceased earned a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month and since the same was not proved by any oral or documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-. The yearly income of the deceased was calculated as Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500x12) and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal income of the deceased, 2/3rd of the income of deceased of Rs. 52,000/- [Rs.78,000-26,000 (78,000x1/3)] was fixed as contribution towards family. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in AIR 2009 (SCC) 3104, the relevant multiplier 14' was adopted. The compensation under the head loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.7,28,000/- (Rs.52,000x14). The learned Tribunal has passed an award under the following heads:-