JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

Challenging the award, dated 25.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Virudhunagar, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Superintendent of Police.

2.The claimant, who is the respondent herein, has filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Alaguraja, who died in the accident that occurred on 02.06.2015. The respondent is the mother of the deceased Alaguraja.

3.The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 02.06.2015, when the deceased-Alaguraja was proceeding in a motor bike bearing Registration No.TN-67-BA-8733 from South to North on Eastern side service road of Virudhunagar-Sattur Road, the driver of the Police Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-72-G-1283, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from North to South and suddenly it jumped into the Eastern side service road and dashed against the deceased vehicle, as a result of which, he died on the spot. Hence, the respondent/claimant, as legal heir of the deceased, has filed this claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4.Resisting the claim petition, the appellant has filed a counter affidavit contending that while the appellant's vehicle was driven by its driver in a normal speed by adhering to the Traffic rules and regulations, which came on Virudhunagar-Sattur road, suddenly the front tyre of the appellant vehicle burst and thereby the driver was in uncontrollable state. Due to this impact, the driver tried to avoid the clashing on the oncoming vehicle, but the vehicle suddenly overrode on the Median of NH7. On seeing this, the rider of the bike on the service of the road, dashed against the appellant's vehicle. Hence, this accident was happened only due to the sudden burst of the front tyre and there is no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant. The quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and without any basis.

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 were also marked.

6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant and that the deceased had sustained injuries and due to the impact, he died. The Tribunal further held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,23,632/-

under various heads.

7.Earlier this Court, vide order, dated 30.09.2020, admitted the appeal on the ground of quantum alone.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal had failed to take note of the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimant is the mother, 50% has to be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased, instead, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of the notional income of the deceased and awarded excessive compensation under different heads.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the Tribunal had correctly awarded the compensation under various heads and the same need not be interfered with.

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10.On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is seen that the deceased was employed as a Fitter and earned a sum of Rs.10,260/- p.m, as per Ex.P.5-salary slip. The Tribunal had correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,260/- and also added 40% towards future prospects, which is arrived at Rs.14,364/- (Rs.10,620 + Rs.4,104), which is also correct. Without considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor a