Compensation awarded based on established income and negligence, with court confirming legal principles for calculating damages in fatal accidents.

JUDGMENT :

J.NISHA BANU, J.

Assailing the ‘Award dated March 4, 2024 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1420 of 2019’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’ for clarity and convenience] by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) Coimbatore' [henceforth ‘Tribunal’ for brevity], the appellant / second respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONERS’ CASE:

3. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the deceased - Vidhaya Priya, while the minor Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her daughters. The petitioners are the dependents of the deceased – Vidhaya Priya. On December 4, 2017 at about 03.00 pm, the 1s respondent was driving his Car bearing Registration No.TN-09-BX-3433 with his friend - Vidhaya Priya sitting in the front passenger seat. They were travelling across Vasistanathi Over Bridge from east to west. As they approached Thalaivasal, Mumudi Bus Stand, due to the first respondent’s rash and negligent driving, the Car collided with the left side parapet wall of the bridge and then struck the right side wall as well. After the accident, Vidhaya Priya passed away on her way to the Hospital. The 1st respondent was the Driver cum Owner of the said Car which is insured with the second respondent. His rashness and negligence is the sole cause of the accident. With respect to this accident, Thalaivasal Police registered a Criminal Case in Crime No. 344 of 2017 under Sections 279 , 337 and 304(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860, against the 1st respondent. The deceased was working as a Medical Transcriptioner, earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioners filed Original Petition claiming a compensation of Rs.50,32,000/- along with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% from the respondents.

1ST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. The 1st respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

2ND RESPONDENT'S CASE:

5. The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company filed counter wherein it is stated that the first respondent’s car bearing Registration No. TN-09-BX-3433 [Honda City] is insured with the second respondent vide Package Insurance Policy No.12121723110031948. The alleged accident on December 4, 2017 at about 03.00 pm occurred not solely due to rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent. The first respondent was driving the Car bearing Registration No.TN-09-BX-3433 at a slow and steady manner from east to west direction over Vasishta Nathi flyover, Chennai -Salem NH, observing traffic rules duly, along with deceased - Vidhaya Priya as inmate. Since a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road, in order to avoid any mishap, the first respondent swerved his vehicle, in which process unfortunately he dashed against the parapet walls. In a nutshell, the manner of accident demonstrated in the Original Petition is false and incorrect. Further, no Motor Vehicle Inspection report of the Car was filed. The petitioners are not dependent on the income of the deceased. The age, income, occupation of the deceased and that she died due to injuries sustained in the accident are denied. Further that the petitioners' claim and the rate of interest claimed are excessive. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

EVIDENCE

6. On the side of the petitioners, 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked. On the side of the 2nd respondent, while no witness was examined, Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.3 were marked by consent of both parties.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL

7. The Tribunal, relying on t