Compensation in motor accident claims must reflect fair assessment of victim's income and depend on valid evidence to determine just compensation.

Judgment

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Panruti in M.C.O.P. No.185 of 2020 dated 25.02.2025.

2.The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 22.04.2020 at about 7.10 a.m., the deceased Jeyaraman, aged about 26 years, was riding a Honda Dio motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-CX-8611 on the Panruti–Salem main road. The injured claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. At that time, a TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-15-C-8124, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

3.The second respondent / Insurance Company resisted the claim by contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and further disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

4.Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/2 towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier 17, and awarded compensation of Rs.22,63,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal, though correctly fixing the negligence on the respondent’s vehicle, failed to award just and adequate compensation. The deceased Jayaraman was working as a lorry driver in Panruti Kumaran Transport and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and had also completed Mechanical Engineering. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at only Rs.15,000/- per month, which is meagre considering the accident occurred on 22.04.2020. The appellants had produced a salary certificate marked as Ex.P14, but the Tribunal rejected it without assigning valid reasons. Considering the deceased’s qualification and employment, his income ought to have been fixed at least at Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal also failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding fixation of notional income and determination of just compensation.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the Tribunal has already granted a just and reasonable compensation and therefore the award does not warrant interference.

7.This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

8. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation was correctly fixed on the respondents. However, the grievance of the appellants is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which is found to be inadequate. The deceased Jayaraman was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was working as a lorry driver in Panruti Kumaran Transport. The appellants contended that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and also possessed a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. In support of the said contention, the appellants produced the salary certificate marked as Ex.P14