The tribunal's compensation of Rs.34,57,400 was affirmed as justified, with correct application of the multiplier method based on the deceased's established salary despite the insurance company's objections.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. J.

The insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the quantum passed in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2021, dated 26.06.2023, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Sivagangai.

2.Brief Facts of the Case:

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased/Rajkumar. He worked in Doha Qatar Country as a steel fitter since the year 2016 and he came to India on leave on 04.02.2019. When he was riding the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 63 AC 9100 along with his father, the appellant insured vehicle namely Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.TN 57 BE 5275 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased and in the result, he died. According to the respondent No.1 and 2, he earned Rs.30,000/- per month. Hence, they filed M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2021, dated 26.06.2023, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Sivagangai and made a claim Rs.40,00,000/-.

3.The appellant/insurance company contested the said claim and specifically denied the negligence on the part of the appellant insured vehicle. According to the appellant/insurance company, the deceased himself suddenly crossed the road on the wrong side, which resulted in the accident. Therefore, they seeks to dismiss the claim petition.

4.The respondent No.1 and 2, to prove their claim examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On the side of the appellant/insurance company, no witness was examined nor document was marked. The learned Tribunal judge after considering Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and other circumstances has held that the accident happened due to the negligence of the appellant's insured vehicle. On the basis of the salary certificate of the deceased and other relevant documents, has held that the deceased received a monthly salary of “1,200/- Qatari Riyals” per month and calculated the compensation by adopting the multiplier method as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi Case and awarded Rs.34,57,400/- . Challenging the same, the insurance has filed this appeal and disputed only quantum of compensation.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company would submit that the calculation of Rs.22,000/- as monthly income of the deceased is not legally correct and he relied the judgment of this Court reported in 2013 2 TNMAC 121 (DB) and 2023 2 TNMAC 647 (DB) and he seeks to reduce the monthly salary of the deceased.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 claimant submitted that the claimants have produced the documents to prove the employment of the deceased and the salary for the receipt of “1,200/- Qatari Riyals” and his employment during the relevant period of accident was also not disputed and no contra evidence was produced and therefore, there is no case for interference in the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

7.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. Whether the learned tribunal judge is correct in awarding Rs.34,57,400/- in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2 for the death of their son in the motor accident happened on 04.02.2019 due to the negligence of the appellant insured vehicle?

8. The insurance company has not disputed the finding of the negligence. Even otherwise the learned Tribunal Judge has considered Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and absence of the contra evidence on the side of the appellant insurance company, believed the evidence of P.W.1, who was a pillion rider of the said two wheeler ridden by the deceased/Rajkumar. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the finding of the tribunal in fixing the negligence on the part of