J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.08.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2013, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District and Sessions Judge), Theni.

2.The claim petitioners are the daughters of the deceased and the wife of the deceased had pre-deceased him, therefore, question of family pension being payable to the claimants does not arise.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 15.07.2013 at about 5.30 a.m, when the first petitioner and her father, namely, Paulchami returned after purchasing tea from tea shop in Theni to Andipatti main Road, a Maruthi Suzuki Ecco Car owned by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules dashed against the petitioners' father, due to which, he sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the K.Vilakku Government Hospital, wherein, he died. Alleging that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, the claim petition has been filed by the daughters of the deceased Paulchami, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was not present and he was set exparte. The second respondent/Insurance Company contested the claim petition on the ground that though horn warning has been given by the first respondent, the deceased was not able to hear the same, due to which, the accident had happened. It is also stated that the offending vehicle was not registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

Hence, the claim petition has to be dismissed.

5. To prove the case, on the side of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1, and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses have been examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and materials placed on record, has held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. Though, the Officer observed that the vehicle was not registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act, he has fixed the liability on the Insurance company and ordered to recover the compensation amount from the first respondent/the owner of the vehicle.

7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, considering the age of the deceased ie., 69 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier '5', deducted 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses and awarded Rs.1,80,000/- as loss of income. Apart from that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards loss and affection and awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the claimants are before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that though the deceased was a pensioner receiving a sum of Rs.18,567/- as pension amount and in order to prove the same, the relevant documents have been produced, the tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/ only, which needs to be enhanced. The compensation amount awarded under other heads also have to be enhanced substantially.

9.The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submits that since the offending vehicle was not registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability cannot be fixed on them.

10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance company and perused the materials placed on record.

11. On perusal, it is seen that the offending is not registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act