J U D G M E N T

(The matter is heard through Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 21.12.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.295 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.295 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Court, Tiruppur. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Kittusamy who died in the accident that took place on 08.09.2016.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, on the date of accident, while the deceased S.Kittusamy was walking at Siruvani Main road, in front of Sri Ram Materials, from East to West direction, following the traffic rules and regulations, the 1st respondent, rider-cum-owner of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-BR-6949 came in the same direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations, dashed behind the deceased S.Kittusamy and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 4th respondent, rider-cum-owner of the Motorcycle and hence, filed the present claim petition claiming compensation against the 4th respondent as rider-cum-owner and appellant as insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the 4th respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3.

5. Challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 21.12.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.295 of 2017, the appellant -

Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the respondents 1 to 3 failed to prove the occupation of the deceased S.Kittusamy as a Milk Vendor by examining P.W.3. During cross- examination, the said P.W.3 – Vijayakumar has stated that he did not know whether the deceased was a retail milk vendor or wholesale vendor and also admitted that he did not know from where the deceased was purchasing the milk. This proves that the deceased S.Kittusamy was not doing Milk Vending business, P.W.3 was a procured witness and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, instead of Rs.7,500/- per month at the most. The Tribunal having fixed the age of the deceased as 46 years, erred in adopting the multiplier '14', instead of the correct multiplier '13', as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another]. The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head, loss of love and affection to the 1st respondent/wife of the deceased. The total amounts awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

7.It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that at the time of accident, the deceased was a Milk Vendor and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. They examined 2nd respondent, son of the deceased S.Kittusamy and one Vijayakumar as P.W.3 to prove the same. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased S.Kittusamy, the Tribunal considering the cost of living prevailing on the date of accident and age of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income of the dec