IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of relevant legal provisions and case law to determine the quantum of compensation for various heads of damages in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2015 made in MCOP No. 1073 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.

1. The claim petitioners are the appellants herein seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MCOP No. 1073 of 2013 dated 06.08.2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The parents of the deceased Venkatesan are the appellants herein. They filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal for the death of their son who died in the road transport accident occurred on 26.11.2013.

3. The factum of accident, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and the vehicle being insured with the second respondent/insurance company are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the Trial Court with regard to negligence are hereby confirmed.

4. On the point of quantum of compensation, heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the second respondent/insurance company and perused the records.

5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that during trial before the Tribunal, the first appellant/claim petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and occurrence witness was examined as PW-2 and Kandan, co-worker who worked alongwith the deceased as lab chemists was examined as PW-3. Ex.P13 salary certificate was marked to show that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs. 16,500/- per month. However, there is one correction in pen as to the date of issuance of the said certificate and hence, the Tribunal has entertained a doubt with regard to the said certificate. Taking into consideration Exs.P8 & P9 - educational qualification certificate and mark list respectively, this Court comes to the conclusion that the deceased Venkatesan is a qualified M.Sc graduate and was working as a lab chemists. Therefore, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- per month is enhanced to Rs. 14,000/-.

6. As per Ex.P11 - driving licence of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased is 30.07.1986. Hence, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), the multiplier applicable is 17. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609, 40% enhancement is awarded towards future prospects. The deceased died as bachelor and hence 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the compensation towards loss of income is enhanced to Rs. 19,99,200/- break-up as follows:

14,000 + 5,600 (14,000 x 40%) x 12 x 17 x 50% = 19,99,200/-

7. The parents of the deceased Venkatesh have lost their son at his young age. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection which is meagre and hence the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- x 2). The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards transportation charges and loss of estate. Therefore, Rs. 15,000/- each is awarded towards transportation charges and loss of estate. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards mental agony is unsustainable and hence the same is hereby set aside. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is just and reasonable and therefore, the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 8,75,000/- to Rs. 21,94,200/- break-up as follows: