The judgment emphasizes that accurate assessment of income, age, and future prospects is vital in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 26.09.2025 M.C.O.P.No.1458 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special District Court II, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. For Appellant(s): Ms.Ramya V.Rao For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Vijayaraghavan for R2 R1- Served – No appearance

Judgment

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award and Decree dated in M.C.O.P.No.1458 of 2019 dated 26.09.2025 on the file of the learned Special District Court II, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

2.The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family, sustained fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The legal heirs of the deceased, being the dependents, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the loss caused by the untimely death of the deceased. The claimants contended that the deceased was engaged in a skilled occupation and was earning a substantial monthly income. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident, the family lost its primary source of livelihood and suffered irreparable financial hardship. Therefore, the claimants sought just and reasonable compensation under various heads such as loss of dependency, consortium, funeral expenses and other conventional heads. The respondents, including the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, resisted the claim mainly disputing the income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed.

3.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore fastened liability upon the insurer of the vehicle. However, while determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed a notional income which was considerably lower than what was claimed by the claimants, on the ground that there was no documentary proof regarding the exact income of the deceased. The Tribunal then proceeded to calculate the compensation by adopting the multiplier method but arrived at a compensation which, according to the claimants, was inadequate and not commensurate with the actual earning capacity of the deceased. Aggrieved by the inadequate quantum of compensation, the claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that though the Tribunal rightly fixed negligence on the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle, it erred in awarding inadequate compensation. The deceased Kumaravel, aged about 43 years, was working as a mason earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal wrongly fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- without properly appreciating the evidence of PW1 and PW3, which establishes his occupation. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the prevailing wages of skilled labourers and the increasing cost of living, and therefore the income ought to have been fixed at not less than Rs.20,000/-. In any event, the fixation of Rs.15,000/- for a 2019 accident is very meagre and warrants interference.

5.The learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal incorrectly fixed the age of the deceased as 48 years, whereas Ex.P2 (Postmortem Certificate) and Ex.P3 (Death Certificate) indicate that the deceased was 43 years old, which would affect the appropriate multiplier. Further, it is argued that the Tribunal ought to have granted just and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads, such as