The court established the principle that compensation must reflect the true earnings of a deceased, considering future prospects and dependents' needs, resulting in an enhanced award.

JUDGMENT :

R.HEMALATHA, J.

1.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.152 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. They filed the claim petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of one Chitra, ( wife of claimant 1 ; mother of claimants 2 to 6) in a road accident that took place on 09.10.2019.

2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :

On 09.10.2019, Chitra (since deceased) was walking along Cuddalore – Trichy National Highways Road and when she was nearing Thambipettai Kesavanarayanan Junction, a bus bearing Registration Number TN-32-N-3951 belonging to the appellant, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, hit her, as a result of which, she sustained injuries all over her body. She was immediately rushed to Government Hospital, Kurinjipadi, from where she was referred to Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry. However, she succumbed to injuries on 13.10.2019.

3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-32-N-3951 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division - I) Limited was the cause of accident and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to them.

4. The respondent resisted the claim petition by filing its counter.

5. The Tribunal vide its orders dated 14.12.2020, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number TN-32-N-3951 and awarded compensation of Rs.14,20,240/- to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants (claimants) have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Heard Ms.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. Ms.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the deceased was a daily wager earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.6,000/-, which, according to her, is very meagre. She therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. Per contra Mr.S.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is based on the well laid down principles of law which were in vogue at the time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed at this stage.

10. In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was aged about 35 years and was a daily wager earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. Considering the age of the victim, year of the accident and the number of minor children depending on their deceased mother, this Court is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. As per the decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 40% is added towards future prospects of the deceased. Since there are five dependents, 1/5th of the deceased's income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier to be adopted in the instant case is 16 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 .

Calculation

Noti