IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that future prospects and standardized deductions for personal expenses must be applied in calculating compensation for wrongful death.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2019 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3310 of 2015 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.19,95,000/- for the death of one S.Maheshkumar, his wife/claimant is on appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) for the death of her husband contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN21-AT-1495. Contending that the deceased was aged 31 years and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.27,000/-, the claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for having lost her husband.

4. The claim was resisted by the second respondent–Insurance Company contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested and the deceased was not wearing Helmet at the time of the accident. It was contended that the deceased has contributed to the accident by his own reckless driving. It was claimed that the deceased overtook another two wheeler and while doing so, collided against a third two wheeler and fell on the left side back wheel of the Bus. Therefore, the deceased himself was totally responsible. The income claimed was termed as 'excessive', the age of the deceased was denied and the claimant was put to strict proof of the same. The mother of the deceased was impleaded as third respondent and she died pending claim petition.

5. At trial, before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Muthukumar, Senior Executive of the employer of the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and one Rajesh, an eye witness was examined as P.W.3. Ex-P.1 to EX-P.16 were marked. Ex-P.15 and Ex-P.16 are the copies of Bank Statements which shows that the salary was credited to the account of the deceased. Ex-P.1 and Ex-P.2 are FIR and Charge Sheet respectively. On the side of the respondents, one Mr.Sampath was examined as R.W.1 and the rough sketch was marked as Ex-R.1. The judgment in the criminal case in C.C.No.878 of 2016 dated 21.02.2018 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai was marked as Ex-R.2.

6. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's Bus. The Tribunal took into account the fact that the FIR and final report were filed against the Driver of the Bus. The Tribunal while deciding on the quantum of compensation fixed the monthly income at Rs.20,000/- as against documentary evidence that was available to show that the claimant was drawing a salary of not less than Rs.25,000/- between April 2014 and October 2014. The Tribunal took into the account the fact that the claimant was working in a Private Concern and the job was not permanent in nature. It also deducted 50% personal expenses on the ground that he is survived only by his wife. The mother of the claimant had died during the pendency of the claim petition. Thus, the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.19,20,000/. The Tribunal did not take into account future prospects also while arriving at the loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total award worked out to Rs.19,95,000/-. Aggrieved, the claimant/wife of the deceased is on appeal.

7. We have heard Mr.M.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Dakshana Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent–Insuran