The court assessed compensation based on actual income, confirming the inclusion of all permissible allowances while addressing liability for the accident based on the negligent actions of the auto driver.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore in M.C.O.P.No.103 of 2011, dated 30.11.2016.

2. On 11.08.2010 at about 12.00 hours, one Mr.Sabu James aged about 37 years, who was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Registration No:TN-23-AV 4732, sustained injuries, when an auto bearing Registration No:TN-23-AB 7585 driven rash and negligently by its driver was hit the motorcycle opposite to Vishnu Theatre on Vellore to Katpadi Road. Sabu James was taken to CMC hospital, Vellore for treatment. He was treated as an inpatient for 28 days, but succumbed to the injuries.

3. The wife, two minor children and parents of Sabu James laid a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the auto driver Mr.Ganesh and the insurer of the vehicle, M/s United India Insurance Co., Ltd. alleging that they are all dependants of the deceased Sabu James, who was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was running a transport business and a landlord, besides being a Senior Manager Channel Accounts- ADC & RFID India and Subcontinents (ISC) Enterprises Mobility Business in a Motorola Company. His monthly income was around Rs.3,85,000/- per month. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate a sum of Rs.9,07,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The Insurance Company filed a counter, denying the liability to compensate the claimants. According to the Insurance Company, the police registered a false case of motor accident belatedly on 18.08.2010, as if Ganesh, the auto driver, rashly and negligently drove his auto and caused accident on 11.08.2010. It is a collusive claim instituted jointly by the claimants and the first respondent Mr.Ganesh (Auto Driver). The FIR was registered, after 7 days of the alleged accident. The vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident was sent for Motor Vehicle Inspection after 68 days. The deceased Sabu James did not sustain injuries in the road accident as alleged in the FIR or in the claim petition. The motorcycle in which Sabu James travelled as pillion rider has not insured under the second respondent. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The claim petition is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties namely, the owner of the motorcycle and its insurer. The quantum of compensation claimed is untenable.

5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, 3 witnesses and 26 documents were filed. On behalf of the second respondent, two witnesses and 4 documents were filed.

6. On behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased was examined as PW-1 to prove the earning capacity of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants. The rider of the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling as the pillion was examined as PW-2. The Senior Specialist in the HR Department of Mortorola Company, which is the employer of the deceased was examined as PW-3.

7. The first respondent, Ganesh, who in writing informed the insurance company that he was not the cause for the accident and was acquitted in the criminal case, did not support the case of the insurance company, when he summoned to give evidence. He in his proof affidavit denied his involvement in the accident, but during the cross examination, turned turtle.

8. On assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the auto driver/the first respondent. The earning capacity of the deceased was fixed based on the salary slips and income tax returns. After adding 50% towards future prospects and deducting 1/4^th for personal e