The court clarified the standards for fixing compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, emphasizing proper income assessment and dependency considerations per established legal precedents.

JUDGME NT

This Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act , has been filed by the appellants / claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.473 of 2021, on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Tribunal.

3. Shortly stated, on 06.11.2020, at about 16.00 hours, while the deceased Balaraman was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 05 AU 4806 from Vadanemili to Tiruporur direction, at Perur Junction, a Maruti Suzuki Car bearing Registration No. TN 05 AU 7176, came in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, rammed behind the deceased’s motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on 09.11.2020.

4. The legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition for a compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- for the loss caused to them due to the death of deceased Balaraman.

5. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the claimants in part and awarded a total sum of Rs.9,70,000/- in favour of the petitioners, and directed the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

6. Questioning the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased and 50% deduction towards his personal expenses for calculating loss of income, the appellants / claimants are on appeal.

7. Ms. A. Subadra, the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the deceased was engaged in business and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is very meagre.

She would further submit that, though the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 58 years, as per FIR, Death Certificate and Post Mortem Certificate, the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as more than 60 years and that since there are three dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50% as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in(2009) 6 SCC 121. She would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under all the heads. Hence prayed for allowing this appeal.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company would submit that, the learned Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 60 and deducted 50% towards his personal expenses since the petitioners 2 and 3 are adult and married and awarded just compensation, which warrants any interference by this Court.

9. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

10. The findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question, the negligence of the respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle, and the deceased having sustained fatal injuries which ultimately resulted in his death, are against the respondents in the claim petition. The aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal appear to be quite correct. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere with the above findings of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are affirmed.

11. Now, the question arises as to whether fixing of notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and deducting 50% towards his personal expenses by the Tribunal is appropriate and reasonable.

12. On a perusal o