The court adjusted the compensation for death in a motor accident, emphasizing proper income calculations and dependency, aligning with established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai' ('Tribunal' for short) vide its order of Award dated June 17, 2022, made in M.C.O.P.No.4427 of 2019, the petitioners have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to enhance the award of compensation.

2. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,80,000/- as compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment, to the appellants/petitioners as against their total claim of Rs.75,00,000/-.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal.

PETITIONERS' CASE:

4. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased – Ganapathy KGS Mani, and the second and third petitioners are his son and daughter respectively. On the fateful day viz., May 12, 2019, at about 07.30 p.m., while the deceased was walking opposite to Sangeetha Hotel, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Thuriapakkam, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-85-C-7084 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, and hit against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and later passed away. The deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of accident and was working as an ‘EB Consultant (Private)’ and earning Rs.13,72,869/- per annum. The petitioners filed Claim Petition claiming Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The first respondent filed a counter stating that the accident had occurred only due to the fault of the deceased. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent's motorcycle and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners 1 to 3. Further, the first respondent denied the age and occupation of the deceased. He stated that the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 85-C-7084 was insured with the second respondent under the Policy No.121221823120091895 which was in force on the date of accident. Further, the compensation sought for is excessive. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

6. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed counter contending that the age, occupation, dependency, and income of the deceased are to be proved by the petitioners. The second respondent denied the driving licence of the rider of the first respondent’s motorcycle, validity of the first respondent’s motorcycle as well as its insurance coverage at the time of accident. Further, the compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the original petition.

TRIBUNAL

7. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:

(1) Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle by its rider?

(2) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

7.1. Before the Tribunal, the third petitioner, daughter of the deceased, examined herself as P.W.1, one G.Raman, eyewitness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2 and 17 documents were marked as Exs-P.1 to P.17. The respondents did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.

7.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent's motorcycle and that the said motorcycle’s insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The breakup of the amount awarded by the Tribunal is as tabulated belo