(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Final Award dated 7th day of April, 2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.383/2019, by the Honble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tiruvallur at Ponneri.)

M. Jothiraman, J.

1. Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, aggrieved over the award dated 07.04.2025 made in MCOP.No.383 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tiruvallur at Ponneri.

2. The claimant is the daughter of the deceased. According to the claimant, on 04.04.2019 at about 9.30 a.m., at Ellavur Bazaar, Gummidipoondi, while the deceased was riding a Tricycle along with waste goods and materials from Veerasamy Nagar to Ellavur Bazaar Waste Paper shop, at that time, the driver of the 1st respondent car bearing Reg.No.TN 03 R 3384, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased’s Tricycle. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous head injury and immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Ponneri and declared that he died on the way to hospital.

3. The appellant herein / 2nd respondent therein has filed a counter statement, wherein it has been stated that it is not true that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No.TN03 R 3384. Since the accident had occurred due to the collision of two vehicles, there is contributory negligence on the part of the Tricycle also.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and one eye-witness Vijayakumar was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 and P12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and no document was marked.

5. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that PW2, who is an eye-witness to the accident categorically deposed that the 1st respondent drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased driver of the Tricycle.

6. As per Ex.P1- FIR, the 1st respondent’s car driver is responsible for the accident. As per Ex.P10, the driver of the car possessed valid driving licence on the date of the accident. As per Ex.P11- Copy of the Insurance Policy which shows that the 1st respondent’s car was insured with the appellant insurance company and the policy was in force. Considering the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month in the absence of any proof of income and by applying the ratio laid down in Smt.Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 (2) TNMAC (1) SC] and National Insurance Co., Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)], applied the Multiplier “11” and granted Loss of Consortium @ Rs.40,000/- for one dependant / claimant and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.17,82,400/-. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed negligence on the part of the deceased, since he was under the influence of alcohol and dashed his tricycle on the left side of the 2nd respondent’s car bearing Reg.No.TN03 R 3384. The Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head loss of dependency without considering the fact that the 1st respondent was married and entered her matrimonial home prior to the death of the deceased and as such, the 1st respondent cannot be construed as dependent on the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has failed to deduct income towards personal expenses of the deceased, while computing the compensation under the head loss of dependency and has not followed the settled legal principles.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant would submit that the Tribunal has taken only meagre amount of Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, while computing the loss of dependency.

9. This Court has considered the submissions made and also perused the materials available on record.

10. It is seen that as per the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the occurrence, has categorically deposed about the manner of accident and further deposed that only the diver of the car bearing Reg. No.TN 03 R 3384 had drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes at the time of accident and as a result of which, the deceased sustained head injury. It is seen from the records that as per Ex.P1- F.I.R, the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent car. Further, as per Ex.P11- Insurance Policy copy, at the time of accident, the insurance policy of the 1st respondent vehicle, insured with the appellant insurance company/ 2nd respondent therein was in force. It is not in dispute that the claimant is the only daughter to the deceased, as per the appellant has neither examined any witness nor produce medical records to prove that the deceased was under influence of alcohol at the time of accident.

11. The Tribunal, taking into consideration that the deceased was a coolie worker and was aged 55 years at the time of accident, had arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, without deducting any personal expenses for arriving the loss of dependency. It is the contention of the appellant insurance company that since the claimant is the married daughter of the deceased, she cannot be construed as a dependent. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that this hon’ble court in the case of Saraswathi v. National Insurance Company [CMA No.2057 of 2018 dated 10.03.2022], wherein this Court observed that it cannot be denied that at regular intervals even a married daughter requires the support of a father for various needs and the burden cannot be shifted. This is an issue which goes beyond economic consideration and is an issue which surrounds the concept of family and therefore, I would consider the daughter, who is married was aged about 21 years, can also be considered as a dependent on the deceased. Keeping in mind the said decision, this Court is inclined to consider the married daughter under the purview of dependent and she is entitled for compensation for loss of dependency. Hence, the claimant is entitled to 50% of compensation under Loss of Dependency, after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded under Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses are concerned, this Court finds that the compensation awarded under the said heads are just and fair and does not require any interference by this Court.

12. In the light of the above reasoning, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under: