PRAYER

To set aside the Order dated 20-03-2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Ponneri) and be pleased to dismiss the claim for compensation and thus render justice.

CMA No. 2068 of 2023

For Appellant(s): Mr.S. Dhakshnamoorthy

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Venkatesulu For R1 And R2

R3 - No Appearance

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the Order dated 20-03-2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Ponneri).

The brief facts of the case are:The respondents 1 & 2 herein filed M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Ponneri) claiming compensation for the death of their son/master E.Subash. The deceased said to have traveled as Pillion in the two wheeler bearing registration No. AP 03 BR 2376 proceeding in the G.N.T Road, Nagathamman Road. At that time the driver of the lorry, bearing registration No. AP 04 V 9636 proceeding on the same direction, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased who travelled as a pillion rider in the two wheeler, due to which the deceased was thrown into the road and succumbed to crush injuries.

Thereafter, first and second respondents filed the petition before the tribunal claiming compensation against the owner of the lorry as well as Insurance Company. The said petition was contested by the Insurance Company/appellant herein however, the owner of the vehicle remained exparte.

The claimants contended that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which was insured with appellant company. On the other hand, the insurance company, while admiring that the lorry was insured at the time of the accident, contended that at the time of the accident three persons were traveling in the two wheeler thereby they violated the policy conditions and contributed to the accident.

On side of the claimants/petitioners, two witnesses were examined and marked 16 documents. There is no witness or documents marked on the side of the respondents.

Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed13 years as age of the deceased based on the birth certificate, Identity Card and th passport. At the time of the accident, the deceased was studying 9 standard and the petitioners also proved that deceased was a brilliant student, who received awards and certificates. On perusal of the extra curricular activities, the tribunal held that the deceased was a brilliant student; he would have acquired professional degree, if he had been alive. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.11,000/- as notional income of the deceased and fixed 40% as future prospects and applied multiplier 18, and awarded a sum of Rs.17,84,200/- as compensation. Challenging the award passed by the tribunal, the Insurance company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that tribunal went wrong by fixing notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/-. Further, it added 40% towards future prospectus for the minor who was aged about 13 years at the time of the accident and also applied multiplier of 18 instead of 15. To support his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgements of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and Ors reported in MANU SC 0486 (2020). Further, the learned appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation without considering the fact that petitioners’ son died at earlier age and there is uncertainties with regard to his academic achievement in future.Hence, he prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal.

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the cla