J U D G M E N T

The appellant, the Manager of National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.3728/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. The claimants / respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of one Dinesh (sons of the claimants 1 and 2 and brother of the third claimant) in a road accident that occurred on 25.12.2015.

2. The brief case of the claimants is as follows :

On 25.12.2015, Dinesh was travelling in a Maruti Alto car bearing Registration number TN 01 AB 5139 on Chennai - Puducherry road. When the car was nearing Marakkanam, the driver of the car drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit a drum placed as median, as a result of which, Dinesh fell down and sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately rushed to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry. However, he succumbed to injuries on the same day.

3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Registration number TN 01 AB 5139 was the cause of the accident and that since the owner of the car had insured his vehicle with the appellant, the National Insurance Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.

4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the car remained absent and was set ex parte. The appellant, Insurance Corporation resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Registration Number TN 01 AB 5139 and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.52,33,000/- to the claimants 1 and 3 together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and dismissed the claim petition as against the father of the deceased, vide its orders, dated 17.07.2023. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the owner and the insurer is joint and several.

6. Aggrieved over the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Heard Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant /

Insurance Company and Mr.R.S.Anandan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants.

8. Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant /

Insurance Company contended that the deceased in the instant case died as a bachelor. However, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. She also contended that when the deceased was working in a private concern, 50% was added towards future prospects of the deceased. She therefore prayed for setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, Mr.R.S.Anandan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and contended that if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. He also contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601 and contended that since the deceased was employed in TCS, 50% of his income should be added towards future prospects.

10. In the instant case,