CHINNAKANNU Vs. SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a road accident that took place on 04.3.2007 at 9.30 p.m., on Ariyur to Vellore main road, a pedestrian named Thanjan aged about 54 years was fatally knocked down by a motor cycle while he was crossing the road. The owner of the motor cycle who is the sole respondent before the Tribunal has now come forward with this appeal.

(2.) The legal representatives of the deceased Thanjan namely his widow and children have moved the MACT with a claim of Rs. 10,00,000.00 as against which the Tribunal has passed an award for Rs. 5,05,200.00. It was contended by the claimants that Thanjan was a noon-meal organiser and was also engaged in real estate business and claimed to have made a monthly income of Rs. 25,000.00 However, the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs. 5,400.00 after making provision for his personal expenses at ?rd, applied a multiplier of 11 based on Sarala Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) dictum it arrived at loss of dependency at Rs. 4,75,200.00. It distributed the remainder part of the award on various heads of general damages.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the appellant had taken up a contention that the accident was a hit and run case where some passers-by had noted down the registration number of the motor cycle and passed on the said information to the police based on which a criminal case was registered in connection with the accident. The investigating agency in the course of its investigation zeroed in on one Kartheeban as the rider of the bike, whose negligence appeared to have resulted in the accident. The second limb of appellant plea before the Tribunal was that even on 17-11-2002, the appellant had sold the motor cycle to one Panneerselvam, who in turn appeared to have sold the vehicle to one Perumal on 09.03.2007 and the said Kartheeban was none other than this Perumal's son.