The court held that in motor accident claims, the determination of compensation must account for the actual earning potential, future prospects, and age-appropriate multipliers to ensure just compensation for the loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT

The appellants have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by the very meagre compensation that has been granted by the learned V Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in MACT OP No.1637/2018 dated 01.03.2023.

2.The 1^st petitioner is the wife and the 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the deceased Ramesh. While the deceased was riding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 04AF 7579 proceeding at Thiruverkadu to Ambattur Main Road opposite to Free care Pharmacy, Ayanabakkam in a careful and cautious manner following the traffic Rules, at that time, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 29AF 5079 coming from South to North directions, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in endangering public safety and dashed against the deceased. Due to grievous injuries, the deceased died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent vehicle and he is solely responsible for the same. The deceased was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- as a Cable TV Operato at the time of accident. They have claimed compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. The 1^st respondent as the owner of the vehicle and the 2^nd respondent as the insurer of the vehicle of the 1^st respondent, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the death of the decease Ramesh.

3.The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company filed their counter disputing the manner of the accident. The 2^nd respondent admitted that the 1^st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with him. The Insurance Company denied the age, income, avocation of the deceased Ramesh. The compensation amount claimed under various heads is excessive.

4.The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Ultimately, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs18,03,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the very meagre compensation that has been granted by the Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the age and the future prospects of the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years old and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month from that 1/3 of the income was deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. He would contend that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under various heads.

6.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would contend that this is a very reasonable award and does not warrant a reconsideration. The compensation amount claimed is excessive.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the papers.

8.On a perusal of records, it is seen that the deceased was working as a Cable TV Operator. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 36 years. Taking into account the cost of living at that time, the notional income can be enhanced to a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month to which 40% of actual salary has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income would come to Rs.23,800/-. The annual income would work out to a sum of Rs.2,85,600/- (Rs.23,800/- x 12 = Rs.2,85,600/-). After deducting 1/3^rd amount towards his personal expenses, the annual contribution to the family would be a sum of Rs.1,90,400/-. At the time of death, the deceased was age