J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, dated 23.12.2014 made in MCOP No.

110 of 2014.

2.The short facts of the case is that on 24.04.2013 at about

3.00 pm, when the deceased Sambasivam was riding his motor cycle TN-68-H-4889 along with his brother Sriram as pillion rider, near Kumbakonam over-bridge Railway New Road, the Lorry TN-31-J-7857 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. In the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and he was taken to Kumbakonam Government Hospital for first aid and subsequently, he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, for treatment, however, he died in the hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that driver of the Lorry caused the accident.

3.Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants, 1 witness was examined and marked 6 documents. On the side of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

4.The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle has caused the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.9,05,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company is before this court.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.The manner of the accident and the finding on negligence are not in dispute and the appeal is confined only to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company mainly argued that the tribunal erred in awarding higher quantum of compensation to the claimants and failed to award a fair compensation and since the deceased was an unmarried person, the tribunal ought to have deducted half of the notional income towards his personal expenses and in cases, where the deceased bachelor left huge number of dependents and widowed mother, lesser deduction can be contemplated and the award of the tribunal under the conventional heads are also on the higher side, hence, the award of the tribunal has to be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants submitted that the tribunal has not added future prospects, while calculating the loss of dependency and in respect of other heads, the award is reasonable and the compensation has to be enhanced to some extent.

8.It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as Painter and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the deceased died at the age of 24 years. Since no reliable document has been filed to prove the income of the deceased, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. By applying multiplier '18' and after deducting 1/4th from the earning of the deceased for his personal expenses, the tribunal has awarded Rs.8,10,000/- towards loss of income. Further, the tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection to the claimants 1 to 4; Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. In total, the tribunal has awarded Rs.

9,05,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

9.Perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased was a Painter and he was earing Rs.15,000/- per month. Since, no reliable document has been produced to prove the income of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the decesed at Rs.5,000/-

10.It is settled law that in case the deceased was self-

employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below 40 years. In the instant case, the tribunal has not added any amount towards future prospects. Hence, this court is of the considered view that 40% has to be added towards fu