JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in MCOP No.171 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge(FTC), Theni. The appellant herein is the second respondent, respondents 1 to 6 are the claimants and the seventh respondent is the first respondent in the claim petition.

2.Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

On 02.07.2016 at about 2 p.m., when the deceased Abdul Salam @

Gandhi was riding a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 67 AR 4899 keeping the left side of the Sattur-Sivakasi Main road, near Mayiladumdurai TSK Fire Works shop, a TATA Indigo bearing registration number TN 59 AZ 8146 came in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased and he died on the spot. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased and they claim a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.

3.Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent is as follows:

The manner of accident as stated in the petition is false. The driver of the car was driving the vehicle a slow speed, keeping the left side of the road in. It was the deceased who drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the car and he invited the accident. The driver of the car was not responsible for the accident. The car was insured with the second respondent and the first respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

4.Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent is as follows:

The driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. He has no badge endorsement. The first respondent violated the policy conditions by allowing the driver to drive the vehicle without proper driving licence. The accident did not happen due to the fault of the first respondent driver. It was the deceased who was not wearing helmet, who was not having valid driving licence and riding a vehicle which was not insured, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. The owner of the two wheeler is a necessary party to the case. The case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The amount claimed is excessive.

5.Three witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and two documents were marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,92,500/- as compensation.

6.Against the award, the second respondent preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the notional monthly income as Rs.10,000/-. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Case. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income as Rs.6,500/-. The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the age of the deceased. The age of the deceased as per the Aadhaar Card is 46 years. The age of the deceased as per the Voter ID is 44 years. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 14 instead of 15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- towards conventional heads, instead of Rs.70,000/- as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case.

7.On the side of the respondents it is stated that the multiplier was rightly fixed by the Tribunal. The age of the deceased is only 40 years. In the post mortem report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 40 years and the award has to be confirmed.

8.The liability was not denied in the appeal. A perusal of the records reveals that Aadhaar Car and voter ID were not marked as documents. The Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 40 years, on the basis of Ex.P2- post mortem certificate. No other document was filed to prove the age of the deceased. Hence it is decided that the age of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.

9.On the side of the appellant it is stated that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.10,000/- which is wrong. The notional salary is to be fixed as Rs.6500/- per month. On the side of the respondent it is stated that the deceased was working as a labour an