S.Ramathilagam, J. - (1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the award made in MCOP.No.113 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 31.7.2015.
(2.) The brief facts of the claim petition is as follows; (i) On 27.12.2013 at 1.15 hours, the deceased Madhusudhanan was travelling in a car bearing registration No.TN-21-J-7971, belonging to one Vickraman, who is the son of respondents 2 and 3, along with others, along Dharmapuri to Bommidi Main Road. The said car was insured with the 4th respondent and was driven by its driver-cum owner, the said Vickraman, in a rash and negligent manner. When the said car was proceeding near Joliyur, it dashed against the high way bridge diversion signal and caused the accident. Due to the accident, deceased Madhusudhanan and others sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to hospital for initial treatment and thereafter to Salem Manipal Hospital for further treatment, where, he succumbed to injuries. The said vickraman, who is the owner cum driver of the car also died in the accident. (ii) A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge Tribunal) Krishnagiri by the claimants 1 to 3, who are father, mother and unmarried sister of the deceased respectively against the respondents 1 to 4 stating the the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the owner cum driver of the said car and a case has also been registered against him. The 1st respondent is the previous owner of the car. The mother and father who are the legal heirs of the driver cum owner of the car are 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively , the 4th respondent is the insurer of the car. (iii) It was contended in the claim petition that the deceased Madhusudhanan was 22 years and hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was an Engineering graduate and was working in D.P. Motors as a Mahendra Two Wheeler Authorised dealer at chennai-47 and was earning Rs.1,74,000/- per annum. Due to the death of the deceased, the whole future of the 3rd claimant/sister of the deceased was lost and shattered. The deceased was young and he had a bright future prospects in his life. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/-. (iv) Resisting the same, a counter was filed by the 4th respondent Insurance Company disputing the age, avocation and income of the deceased. (v) On the side of the claimants, the 1st claimant examined himself as PW1, Thiru.Pugazhenthi and one Chandrasekar were examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively and marked Ex.P.1 to P.8 as documents. On the side of the respondents, neither a witness nor a document has been examined or marked.
(3.) The Tribunal after assessing the evidence and documents placed before it, and also verifying the fact that the deceased was an Engineering graduate, has fixed the monthly income at Rs.14,500/- and quantified the compensation on other heads and awarded a sum of Rs.33,72,000/- as total compensation. The break up details are tabulated as under; JUDGEMENT_22_LAWS(MAD)4_2018_1.html;