1. The appellants / claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1214 of 2022, dated 02.01.2024, have filed this appeal.

2. On 28.08.2022 at about 07.20 a.m., when the deceased Giri was riding a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 68 J 2217 in Mettur to Vellakovil Main Road, near N.Karaiyur bridge, the car bearing Reg.No.TN 23 BD 5756 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the way to the Hospital. The first respondent is the driver of the car, the second respondent is the owner of the car and the third respondent is the insurer of the car. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed by the claimants/wife, children and mother of the deceased, before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car. Having reached such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.7,55,000/- under various heads. The above compensation was directed to be paid by the second and third respondents along with interest at 7.5% p.a.

4. The claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed this appeal seeking compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in order to prove the income of the deceased, Ex.X3 was produced by P.W.2/employer of the deceased, wherein, it has been stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.25,000/-. However, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- and has failed to fix the future prospects. He further submits that in Aadhaar Card, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 41 years, however, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the age of the deceased as 61 years and applied the multiplier for the age of 60 years, instead of applying the appropriate multiplier for the age of 41 years and the amount awarded under the other heads is also very meagre. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for enhancement of compensation.

6. The first and second respondents remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent / Insurance company submitted that the Tribunal taking into consideration all the relevant documents has rightly fixed the compensation, which does not require any interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.

8. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. In the instant case, the deceased was working as Mason and was aged about 41 years at the time of accident as could be evinced from Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and the accident had taken place in the year 2022. In order to prove the income, the claimants have marked the Pay Certificate as Ex.X3, wherein, it has been stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.25,000/-. However, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- which is on the lower side. Hence, considering the fact that the accident had happened in the year 2022, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly income at Rs.18,000/- p.m, by applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq & Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2014 (2) SCC 735). From Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, it is clear that the age of the deceased was 41 years. However, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the age of the deceased as 61 years and applied the multiplier for the age of 60 years. Hence, the applicable multiplier for the age of the deceased (i.e.,) 41 years is '14' in terms of Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others (2009 (6) SCC 121). Further, the Tribunal has failed to fix the future prospects. Hence, for the purpose of fixing the future prospects of the deceased, taking the age of the deceased at 41 years and by applying the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others (2017 (16) SCC 680), this Court fixes the future prospects at 25% and accordingly, the loss of income would be:

Monthly Income : Rs. 18,000/-

Add: Future Prospects : Rs. 4,500/- 25% of Rs.18,000/- ----------------- Rs. 22,500/-

Annual Income : Rs. 2,70,000/- (22,500 * 12)

Less : Personal expenses Rs.2,70,000/- * 1/4 : Rs. 67,500/- ----------------- Rs. 2,02,500/-

Multiplier : x 14 ------------------ Loss of dependency : Rs.28,35,000/- ------------------

10. The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Love & Affection’ could be awarded only to the appellant Nos.2 to 4/children and mother of the deceased, however, the first appellant/wife of the deceased was also awarded the compensation under the head loss of love and affection, even though the compensation under the head loss of consortium was granted to her. Hence, the compensation awarded under the head loss of love and affection to the appellant No.1/wife is hereby set aside.

11. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the head loss of love and affection to the appellant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each of them, but as laid down in Pranay Sethi case, the amount that could be awarded under the said head is Rs.44,000/- to each of the appellants 2 to 4, and accordingly, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.44,000/- to each of the appellants 2 to 4. The compensation awarded under the head loss of consortium at Rs.20,000/- to the first appellant/wife is also very meagre and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.44,000/-.

12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/- is excessive and the same is reduced to Rs.16,500/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of estate, hence, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.16,500/- under the head loss of estate.

13. In the above circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the below mentioned heads is modified as under:

14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.7,55,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.30,44,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The third respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1214 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. On such deposit, the appellant Nos.1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making proper application before the Tribunal. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.

15. Insofar as the appellants 2 and 3, viz., the minor sons of the deceased are concerned, since they are yet to attain majority, the Tribunal is directed to keep their share in deposit in an interest yielding fixed deposit with any one of the Nationalised Banks, initially for a period of three years to be renewed at periodic intervals until the minors attain majority and interest derived from out of the said share of the minors shall be paid to the first appellant/ mother every quarter to be utilised for the welfare of the said minors. Upon attaining majority and upon proper proof being filed substantiating attainment of majority, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the share of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 directly to the Bank account of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 through RTGS. No costs.