The court enhanced the compensation due to inadequate initial assessment and clarified liability principles regarding insurance responsibility even without a valid driver’s license.

JUDGMENT :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.669 of 2011 dated 11.09.2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Erode.”

2. The facts leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:-

(i) That on 14.03.2011 at about 10.10 a.m., the 4th respondent was riding the bike bearing Reg.No.TN 34 A 4927 in a rash and negligent manner on the Kuppam-Krishnagiri Road towards Krishnagiri, one Thirunavukkaasu was travelling as a pillion rider. At that time, the 1st respondent drove the Eicher Van bearing Reg.No.KA 08 3040, in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner. Both the vehicles collude with each other and due to the accident, the rider and pillion rider of the two wheeler sustained simple and grievous injuries. Immediately they were taken to Krishnagiri Govt. Hospital, where, the pillion rider-Thirunavukkarasu succumbed to injuries.

(ii) At the time of accident, the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was aged 30 years and was hale and healthy and was employed as a Bore Well Manager in Balaji Bore Well Company and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000 per month as salary. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners who are mother and sister of the deceased, suffered great mental agony and monetary loss.

(iii) Since the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles viz., two wheeler and Eicher Van, the claimants/appellants herein moved a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode District at Erode claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with 12% interest and cost.

(iv) They filed the claim petition against the 1st , 2nd and 3rd respondents who are respectively the driver, owner and insurer of Eicher Van and against the 4th , 5th and 6th respondents, who are respectively the rider, owner and insurer of the two wheeler stating that they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(v) Before the claims tribunal, on the side of the claimants, witnesses PW1 and PW2 were examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 and RW2 were examined as witness and Ex.R1 to Ex.R.8 were marked.

(vi) The tribunal, on appreciation of oral evidence and documents, fixed the liability of negligence on the drivers of both the vehicles equally at 50% :: 50% and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.3,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

(vii) The compensation arrived at by the tribunal under the conventional heads are tabulated as follows:

(viii) Aggrieved against the quantum of compensation awarded passed by the tribunal, the appellants /claimants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claims tribunal having failed to see that it is a case of fatal, ought to have awarded more compensation, however, it awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,44,000/- for the death of the deceased. Though PW1, in her evidence has categorically stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month, it fixed the notional income of the deceased only at Rs.6000/- and had rd erroneously deducted 50% instead of 1/3 towards personal expenses. Towards love and affection and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- and Rs.6000/- respectively. The amounts awarded as compensation under the above said heads are very very meagre. As per the Sarla Verma's ca