The compensation calculation for wrongful death must reflect credible evidence of negligence, proper income assessment, and adherence to legal standards for damages under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the award dated 28.01.2020, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1285 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The appellant is the second respondent in the claim petition and the respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants who filed a petition for compensation for a sum of Rs.2 Crores for the death of one Rengarajan. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.84,94,334/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 to 4 have filed a claim petition alleging that the deceased Rengarajan was working as Senior Accounts Officer in BHEL, Trichy and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and other income totalling a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. While so, on 12.06.2015, in the midnight at about 00.15 hrs, while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-45-BD-2001 near Trichy- Pudukkottai main road near Trichy Airport outside gate opposite towards northern direction, at that time, a TATA 407 bearing Registration No.TN-55-L-8167 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came from the opposite direction dashed against the rider of the two wheeler and thereby, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on 23.06.2015. The deceased was aged about 58 years and incurred a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards medical expenses. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent. A criminal case was also registered as against the driver of the first respondent in Crime No.166 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The first petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased. Therefore, they have filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2 Crores as against the second respondent.

4. The second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. The accident had not happened as alleged in the petition. The first respondent driver is no way responsible for the accident and the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. The second respondent denied the manner of accident, age, income of the deceased and the petitioners are also put to strict proof of the income of the dependency of the deceased and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination:

a) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent TATA 407 van bearing Reg.No.TN-55-L-8167?

b) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W. 3 were examined and exhibits Ex.P 1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and three documents Ex.R1 to R3 were marked.

7. After careful analysis of the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.84,94,334/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum by directing the second respondent insurer of the vehicle to deposit the amount within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said award the present appeal has been filed.

8. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status/ ranking in the trial court.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimants are respondents 1 to 4 herein and they have filed a petition for compe