Court rectified compensation by properly assessing notional income and confirming individual fund allocation for dependents, adhering to legal principles regarding negligence and loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the Award, dated

03.03.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.196 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Pudukkottai.

2.The petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.196 of 2017 are the appellants herein. The petitioners/claimants are the dependents of the deceased Shanmugam, who died in a motor traffic accident. The respondents herein are respondents in the claim petition.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.196 of 2017 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

The deceased Shanmugam was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 55 S 6957 from Pudukottai to Pattukottai main road from east to west on 11.12.2016. At about 7.30 p.m., when he was riding near Thulukka Viduthi Vellachi Aatha Kovil on the left side of the said road, a JCB bearing registration No.TN 55 Q 9930, belonging to the first respondent, coming from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the impact, the deceased was thrown away and died due to multiple fatal injuries. The deceased Shanmugam was a bachelor who had completed ITI Welding. He was working as a welder and was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioners are depending on the income of the deceased Shanmugam. FIR in Crime No.255 of 2016 U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC was registered against the driver of the first respondent by Thiruchitrambalam Police Station. The JCB of the first respondent was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

5.The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company objected the claim petition by contending that the first respondent’s vehicle was not driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased, without a driving license, in a drunken condition, was riding his motorcycle and due to his negligence, only the accident occurred. Moreover, the first respondent's driver was also not in possession of a valid driving license. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to claim from the second respondent.

6.Before the Tribunal, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked eight documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On the second respondent's side, three witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and three documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.

7.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has held negligence on the driver of the JCB/first respondent. The Tribunal has arrived at a total compensation of Rs.10,10,800/- and directed the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the amount to the petitioners with interest and cost and to recover the same from the first respondent, as the driver of the first respondent had no valid driving license and violated the policy condition.

8.Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10.The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased Shanmugam was working as a welder. The deceased was earning Rs.13,500/- as per Ex.P.5 - Salary Certificate. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.7,000/- p.m., which is meagre and the same has to be enhanced. The Division Bench of this Court has adopted an approach considering the cost inflation index for the subsequent years and thereby the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.12,800/-. The Tribunal has awarded the con