Compensation calculation must prioritize objective medical evidence for age determination and apply established inflationary indices for notional income when direct income proof is unavailable, with appellate intervention reserved only for cases where perversity in the award calculation is clearly demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award, dated 01.03.2024 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1784 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Madurai.

2. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent/Insurance company in M.C.O.P.No.1784 of 2021. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner/claimant and the respondents 2 to 7 are the 1st respondent and respondents 3 to 7 in M.C.O.P.No.1784 of 2021.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.1784 of 2021 are adopted hereunder.

4. The brief facts of the case:

On 19.10.2019 at about 20.30 hours, the deceased Palaniyandi was walking along Karuppayurni to Sivagangai main road near R.K.Weighbridge from east to west by keeping the left side of the road. Whileso, the 1^st respondent’s vehicle bearing registration number TN 63 AK 1978 coming from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 19.10.2019 and took treatment as an inpatient till 15.11.2019, on which date the deceased died despite of treatment. An F.I.R. in Crime No.183 of 2019 U/s.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC was registered against the driver of the 1st respondent. The deceased was aged 60 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. as a Watchman in Rukmani Polytechnic College, Varichiyur, Madurai. The offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company. The petitioner is the son of the deceased through the 2^nd wife, Panjavarnam, who already died. The respondents 3 to 7 are the wife and children of the deceased Palaniyandi. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for himself and respondents 3 to 7.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The second respondent objected to the claim petition by contending that the 1st respondent’s driver was driving the lorry at a moderate speed by observing traffic rules. The deceased, who was walking on the road, voluntarily invited the accident without noticing the oncoming vehicle. The accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased himself. So, the 1^st respondent’s vehicle is not responsible for the accident. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. The respondents 3 to 7 filed a counter and stated that the petitioner is not the legal heir of deceased Palaniyandi and that there is no relationship between the petitioner and these respondents. This petition has been filed concealing true information.

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the respondents' side, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.14 were marked.

9. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent’s vehicle. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased and awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,72,512/- under various heads.

10. Aggrieved by the said award, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11. The short issue which has to be considered is whether the compensation has t