Compensation adjustments must align with judicial findings, and future earning potential should be considered in determining appropriate compensation amounts.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.813 of 2018 dated 12.03.2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court to deal with MCOP cases, Madurai.

2. The appellants / claimants, who were awarded with a compensation of Rs.14,18,300/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and Three Hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the respondents 2 and 4, for the death of Shanmugaraj, consequent to an accident occurred on 02.01.2017, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the Tribunal.

4. During enquiry, the claimants examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and one Kalimuthu as P.W.2 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The fifth respondent had remained ex-parte. The respondents 1 to 4 adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

5. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 holding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the fifth respondent and the third respondent's driver and directed the respondents 2 and 4 being the insurers to pay compensation of Rs.14,18,300/- to the claimants with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal, after giving such a finding that the driver of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and consequently mulcted liability on the insurer of both the vehicles, directed them to pay 50% of the compensation each to the claimants, but in the final portion of the order, the Tribunal instead of directing the respondents 2 and 4 to pay compensation of Rs.14,18,300/- each, erroneously deducted 50% of the compensation payable to the claimants.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, in paragraph No.13 while deciding point No.2, the Tribunal has concluded, “As the second respondent is the insurer of the first respondent and as the third respondent is insurer of the fourth respondent are liable to pay the each 50% of compensation to the claimants.” But the Tribunal before result paragraph, in paragraph No.22 has held, “As already this Tribunal fixed the second respondents and fourth respondent are liable to pay each 50% of compensation in total amount of compensation to the petitioners 1 and 2 (Rs.28,36,600/- - 50% (Rs.14,18,300/-) = Rs.14,18,300/-). Hence this Tribunal is awarded the total compensation Rs.14,18,300/- to the claimants 1 and 2 after deduction of 50% of compensation.”

8. Considering the above, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4, the Tribunal's deduction of 50% of the compensation is inconsistent with its finding that both drivers are responsible for the accident. Given the Tribunal's finding that both insurers are liable, the deduction appears to be an inadvertent mistake that warrants rectification.

9. As already pointed out, the claimants have filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would mainly contend that the deceased was an engineering graduate and he has already completed his course in Raja College of Engineering and Technology, Madurai but the Tribunal, without considering the ab