The court emphasized the validity of salary certificates from government bodies and the necessity to include future prospects in compensation calculations for road accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come by way of this appeal.

2. The husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants 2 to 4 died in a road accident that had occurred on 05.12.2008. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.TN-04B-4060 belonging to the first respondent Corporation. The lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the tree branches, as a result, the trash boxes kept in lorry had fallen over the victim, due to the impact, the victim fell down from the lorry and sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted in a Government Hospital and died on 14.12.2008. Therefore, the claimants have filed the Motor Accident Claim petition seeking compensation.

3. The claim petition was opposed by the first respondent/Corporation on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. The negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry was specifically denied. It was further claimed by the first respondent that the lorry was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company and hence the second respondent was liable to pay the compensation.

4. The second respondent filed counter disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The second respondent also claimed that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further pleaded by the second respondent that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle and hence there was no statutory requirement for the second respondent to cover the passenger travelling in the goods vehicle.

5. It is further contended by the second respondent that as per the terms of Insurance policy, any liability that may be determined by the Court over and above limited liability as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, will have to borne by the first respondent.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st appellant/1^st claimant was examined as PW.1. One eye witness was examined as PW.2 and Office Assistant of the first respondent Corporation was examined as PW.3 on behalf of the claimants. Seventeen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the first respondent, no one was examined as witness. The second respondent examined it's Deputy Manager as RW.1 and on behalf of the second respondent, three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3.

7. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry owned by the first respondent. It was also held by the Tribunal that the second respondent/Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation amount only to the extent of the coverage attracting Employee's Compensation Act and the rest had to be borne by the 1^st respondent employer. The amount of compensation payable to the claimants was quantified by the Tribunal at Rs.13,24,000/-. The second respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,68,680/- and the balance of Rs.7,55,320/- was directed to be paid by the first respondent. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come by way of this appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the respondents 1 and 2 have not questioned the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence and liability. The arguments are advanced only on the question of quantum. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in order to prove the salary of the deceased, the claimants marked Ex.P17-salary certificate and the total salary of the victim was mentioned as Rs.8,166/-, however, the Tribunal fixed monthly income of deceased only at Rs.6,000/- and the same requires enhancement.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that in Ex