J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.

2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 29.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.523 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sankari.

3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.523 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sankari. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Rajendran, who died in the accident that took place on 07.10.2013.

4.According to respondents 1 to 4, on 07.10.2013 at about 05.00 P.M., while the deceased S.Rajendran was driving his TVS XL Super moped bearing Registration No.TN 52 5126 near Konganapuram pirivu and crossing the Konganapuram to Idappadi Main Road from left side to right side, the driver of the Mahindra Xylo car bearing Registration No.TN 52 E 6564, who was driving the car from Konganapuram to Idappadi, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS XL Super moped driven by the said S.Rajendran and caused the accident. In the accident, the said S.Rajendran was thrown out on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the said S.Rajendran was taken to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. Inspite of treatment, the said S.Rajendran succumbed to injuries on 08.10.2013. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said S.Rajendran against the 5th respondent and appellant-

Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the car respectively. 5.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the car owned by 5th respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.19,85,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

6.Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 29.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.523 of 2013, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondents 1 to 4 failed to prove the alleged employment, income and payment of salary of the deceased. The age of the deceased is 51 years as per the driving license produced by the respondents 1 to 4 and the correct multiplier applicable is '11' but the Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier '13'. The Tribunal erroneously granted 25% enhancement towards future prospects contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others]. The amount awarded towards loss of love and affection is also contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 contended that the date of birth of the deceased is 03.02.1963 and the date of accident is 07.10.2013. On the date of accident, the deceased has completed 50 years 8 months and 4 days and the Tribunal took the completed years and granted 25% enhancement as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC). The deceased has completed 50 years and 8 months and the Tribunal rightly granted 25% enhancement towards future prospects. The multiplier '13' applied by the Tribunal is also correct and the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9.Though notice has been served on the 5th respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him, either in person or through counsel.

10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appea