The court held that compensation in road accidents must be equitable, emphasizing fair income assessments and acknowledging future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran, J.)

It is brought to the notice of this Court that 1^st respondent/Manivasagam died, this Court suo motu impleads respondents R5 to R7 as parties to the appeal (C.M.A.No.469 of 2014) and also impleads petitioners 2 to 4 in Cross Objection SR.No.102988 of 2019 in their capacity as the legal heirs of the deceased 1^st petitioner.

2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, in M.C.O.P.No.582 of 2005.

3. Cross Objection SR.No.102988 is filed by the petitioner/Cross objector to enhancement of compensation.

4. The claimant/Cross objector had taken out an application for enhancement of compensation. It is not out of context to record the facts that, pending appeal, the 1^st respondent, who is the claimant has lost his breath on 20.02.2024, living behind his wife, his mother (widow) and son who has just attained majority.

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, on 01.06.2005 early morning at 4.45 a.m, an auto bearing Reg.No.TN-39-AB-2079, carrying four passengers besides the driver had dashed against a Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-28-4509. The occupants of the auto had sustained injuries. The claimant/Manivasagam was one among them. The claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- instituted by Manivasagam contending that the injuries sustained by him had made him cripple, causing 100% disability and unable to earn his livelihood or maintain his dependent. Claiming that, before the accident, he was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per month as welder in a carpentry and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the auto driver in which he was travelling. Consequently, the claimant has instituted the claim petition against (i) the owner of the auto and its insurer and (ii) the owner of the lorry and its insurer.

6. The claim petition was strongly and vehemently contested by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on the side of the petitioner as well as the evidence on the side of the respondents, including the documents relied on either side, held that the accident occurred wholly due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver in which the claimant was travelling and sustained injuries.

7. Regarding the loss of income and the quantum of compensation, though the claimant has averred that he was earning Rs.6000/- per month and adduced oral evidence of the co-worker to support his claim. However, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of Rs.3000/- per month and the applied multiplier since the medical evidence indicated that the claimant had sustained 100% functional disability.

8. The award of the Tribunal is challenged by the Insurance Company on the ground that when there is head on collusion between the Auto and the lorry, the negligence on the part of the lorry driver has been totally ignored by the Tribunal and had fixed entire liability on the insurer of the Auto.

9. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it was contended that a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as notional income fixed by the Tribunal is per se without any basis. Further, submitted that multiplier 18 should be applied for the injured person, whose age is 27 is also not inconsonance with the dictum laid down in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company contended that other injured persons also laid claim petition and their evidence in the respective claim petition would clearly indicate that it was head on collusion and both the drivers were at fault. Therefore, the entire liability ought not to have been fastened on the insurer of the Auto. Furthermore, submitted that there was no evidence to prove the claimant had sustained 100% functional disability, for applying the multiplier. The Tribunal gravely erred in applying the multiplier in this case.

11. Per contra, the