IMPORTANT POINT
The appropriate multiplier for compensation in accidental death cases should be based solely on the deceased's completed age, as established in the Sarla Verma case.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VADAMALAI, J.)

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2014, dated 13.03.2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Dindigul.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the Award, dated 13.03.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Dindigul.

2. The 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2014 is the appellant herein.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the petitioners/claimants, who filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2014. The 5th respondent herein is the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in M.C.O.P.No. 257 of 2014 is adopted hereunder.

5. The brief facts of the case:

On 22.10.2013 at about 01.30 p.m. the deceased Murugesan was riding as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 58 AC 0186 along the Kannivadi - Dindigul road, driven by its rider in a moderate speed, while the vehicle was nearing Vakkil Ganesan Thottam of Alathooranpatti, a dog suddenly crossed the road and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained head injuries and other parts of the body. Immediately, the injured Murugesan was admitted in the Government Hospital, Dindigul. After first aid, he was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, Madurai and again he was shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 27.10.2013. However, despite treatment, Murugesan died on 28.10.2013 due to accidental injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased Murugesan was working as a Firka Surveyor and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioners are being wife, son and parents of the deceased depending solely on his income. F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.167 of 2013 of Kannivadi Police Station under Section 279 & 337 of IPC and then altered into Section 304 (A) of IPC against the rider of the two wheeler. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. Hence, the petitioners, who are the dependants of the deceased Murugesan, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

6. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company objected that the accident occurred due to careless and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. The rider was not having valid driving licence. The insurance policy and registration certificate are disputed. The particulars of age and income of the deceased Murugesan are denied. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners adduced oral and documentary evidence. Petitioners examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the respondents' side no witness was examined and no document was marked. After hearing both and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has held that the accident happened due to negligence on the part of the rider of the 1st respondent’s motorcycle TN 58 AC 0186 and awarded Rs.21,12,240/- to the petitioners with interest and cost and directed the 2nd respondent to pay the award amount. Aggrieved by the said award, the 2nd respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Heard both side and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10. It is the main contention of the counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent Insurance Company is that the deceased was at the verge of superannuation and the deceased was aged 59 years and 11 months and hence, split multiplier ought to have been adopted. The Tribunal held the age of the deceased as 51. It is further contended that even if the deceased was aged 51 years and he would get retirement at 58 years and