In computing compensation for the death of a bachelor in a motor accident, a mandatory deduction of 50% of the deceased's income must be applied towards personal and living expenses, consistent with established judicial precedents regarding dependency assessment.

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the Award, dated30.07.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Court dealing with MCOP Cases, Tirunelveli.

2.The 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the petitioners/claimants and the respondents 6 to 9 are the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.704 of 2016 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

On 16.05.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased Kattlingam was travelling in the 1^st respondent’s Indica car bearing registration No.TN 69 AA 8411 from Trichy to Thirupathi. The said car was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner near Ramakrishna Polytechnic at Perambalur on Trichy to Chennai NH Road and hit against the rear portion of the Eicher Mini lorry bearing registration No.TN 39 AU 9912 belongs to the 4^th respondent.Due to the impact, the deceased Kattlingam sustained multiple fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent act of the 1^st respondent. The deceased Kattlingam was a bachelor who was aged 31 years. He was working as an advocate clerk and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioners were dependent on the income of the deceased Kattlingam. An FIR in Crime No.320 of 2014 U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC was registered against the driver of the 1^st respondent by Perambalur Police Station. The car of the 1^st respondent was insured with the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th respondent’s Eicher Mini lorry was insured with the 5^th respondent. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

5.The 3^rd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., objected to the claim petition and contended that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the 4^th respondent’s Eicher Mini lorry. The 1^st respondent was not responsible for the accident. So, the 3^rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners/claimants.

6.The 5^th respondent/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., objected to the claim petition and submitted that the accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent’s car. The 4^th respondent’s Mini Lorry was not responsible for the accident. Hence, this respondent, being the insurer of the 4^th respondent, is not liable for any compensation.

7.The respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

8.Before the Tribunal, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked five documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. On the respondents' side, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.

9.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has held negligence on the driver of the 1^st respondent’s Indica car. The Tribunal has arrived at a total compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- and directed the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the amount to the petitioners with interest by its order, dated 30.07.2020.

10.Aggrieved by the said award, the 3rd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There is no dispute between both sides that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent’s driver. The only dispu