The court reinforced the importance of accurate salary assessment and proper consideration of future prospects in determining compensation in fatal accident claims.

1. The claimants, being unsatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MCOP No.1773 of 2004, dated 15.11.2008 have preferred this appeal.

2. The first appellant / claimant is the wife of Mr.G.Nagaraj, since deceased, the appellants 2 & 3 are their minor children and the fourth appellant, the mother of the deceased. The deceased Nagaraj, a Passenger Guard in the Southern Railway, on 27.12.2003, while riding in his motorcycle and proceeding in G.S.T. Road from Tambaram to Chrompet in the northern direction, the vehicle owned by the first respondent hit the motorcycle and on account of the accident, Mr.Nagaraj died on the spot. The claimants contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was getting an average monthly salary of Rs.21,791/- and other special benefits and he was aged about 39 years at the time of his demise and had 19 years of remaining service had he been alive and claimed a total compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-.

3. The first claimant examined herself as PW - 1, PW - 2 one Mr.Dhanasekaran, official from the railway was examined to prove the salary of the deceased and PW - 3 was the eye - witness. The claimants marked 18 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.18, however, there was no oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the respondents.

4. The Tribunal after taking note of the deposition of the PW - 2, who had deposed that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.21,791/- deducted 50% and fixed the salary at Rs.11,000/-. The annual income was calculated at Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.11,000X12); a sum of Rs.88,000/- was deducted from the said amount being 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The balance amount namely Rs.64,000 was assessed as the loss of contribution to the family and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 16 and arrived at total loss of contribution at Rs.14,08,000/-; A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses; and a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection. The total award was for Rs.14,33,000/- together with 7.5% interest.

5. The challenge to the impugned award is on the quantum of compensation awarded being inadequate.

6. Mr.P.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in arriving at the salary of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-, when there was evidence to show that the deceased had drawn a gross salary of Rs.21,791/-. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the deduction of 50% of the salary towards personal expenses is grossly excessive and that there was no provision made in the award for future prospects. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of loss of consortium and the compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection was grossly inadequate. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement.

7. We have heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company who sought to sustain the award by contending that the salary of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal was proper, as the salary has to be calculated after deducting income tax.

8. Ex.P.12 is the salary slip of the deceased, which shows that the gross salary, which the deceased received was Rs.24,705/- and the net pay was Rs.21,015/-. Ex.P.13, is the pay drawn particulars of the deceased for computation of income tax for the year 2003-04. Ex.P.17, is the salary particulars of the deceased for the period about eight months. Though in Ex.P.12, which is the salary slip for September 2003, the gross pay is mentioned as Rs.24,705/-, when we peruse Ex.P.12, the salary particulars for a period of eight months, it