JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, by the appellant / Insurance Company / respondent challenging the liability of the award.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(i) This is a fatal case. On 18.08.2012 at about 1.00 P.M., the deceased Sahul Hameed was riding from Senkottai to Tenkasi in TVS Scooty bearing registration No. T.N.76-M.5438 from west to east direction.

While so, unexpectedly a cow jumped into the road, the deceased Sahul Hameed in order to prevent a collusion as against the cow applied sudden break. As a result of which, the said TVS Scooty got skid in the road and the deceased fell down from the bike. As a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries on the back side of his head and all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi for first aid and then taken to the Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli for further treatment. Though the best and necessary treatment given to the Sahul Hameed, he died on 22.08.2012.

(ii) Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed M.C.O.P.No.

362 of 2012, seeking a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) for the loss of life of the deceased Sahul Hameed. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the daughters of the deceased. The respondent had filed a counter refuting the allegations put forth in the claim petition.

(iii)Three issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. Following which one witness was examined, i.e., the 1st claimant / wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 were marked on the side of the petitioners in which Ex.P-1 is the Copy of FIR report, Ex.P-2 is the postmortem report, Ex.P-3 is the copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.P-4 is the vehicle inspection report. One witness was examined, i.e., Office Assistant of the respondent Insurance Company was examined as R.W-1 and Ex.R-1 was marked on the side of the respondent in which Ex.R-1 is the Insurane certificate.

(iii) On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments submitted by the respective parties before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal had proceeded to conclude that the accident happened only because of the sudden intervention of the cow. The deceased attempted to prevent the collusion of the two wheeler as against the cow which had suddenly jumped into the road and not due to the collusion with another vehicle. It is needless to mention that the vechicle of the deceased was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. It was also certified by the learned Tribunal that the Insurance P.A coverage was owner cum driver package in which additional premium of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) was also paid by the deceased to cover the owner cum driver insurance coverage. Hence, the learned Tribunal proceeded to conclude that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation for the deceased under Section 163 (A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(iv) Since it was stated that in the claim petition, the deceased earned Rs.3,250/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) per month. Since the deceased was 60 years old, the relevant multiplier 8 was adopted. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, he would spend Rs.2167/- (Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Seven only) for the welfare of his family. Accordingly, the loss of income would arrive at Rs.2,08,032/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight Thousand and Thirty Two only). Hence, the Tribunal had concluded that petitioners were entitled to get Rs.2,17,532/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two only) as compensation. The details of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal are as follows: