The appellants, being the claimants, having lost their breadwinner at the age of 35 years in the accident that took place on 8.1.2007 at about 8.00 A.M., aggrieved by the impugned award dated 17.7.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1753 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Salem awarding a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, have brought this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that when the breadwinner of the claimants' family was working as a Power loom Supervisor and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has unreasonably fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on the ground that no documentary proof was produced to prove the same and after deducting one-third thereof towards his personal maintenance, has taken a sum of Rs.2,000/- to arrive at the loss of dependency. This is unjustified in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627, wherein the Apex Court, while fixing the notional monthly income of a vegetable vendor, keeping in mind the price rise of agricultural products, has fixed Rs.6,500/- as the notional monthly income even in the absence of documentary evidence to prove the income. When this is the settled legal position, in the present case, it was pleaded in the claim petition that the breadwinner, at the time of accident, was working as a Powerloom Supervisor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. While so, the Tribunal ought to have fixed Rs.6,500/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased, adding 50% of the actual salary towards the future prospects, applying the correct multiplier, after deducting one-third thereof, ought to have arrived at the just and reasonable compensation towards the loss of dependency. Whereas in the present case, no amount has been added towards future prospects. Secondly, towards the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the wife of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- each to the two children of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. Moreover, a sum of Rs.5,000/- alone has been fixed towards the funeral expenses apart from Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of estate. Therefore, it was contended that the compensation has to be enhanced suitably in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627 and also following the ruling of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh & others, 2013 (9) SCC 54, a just and reasonable compensation has to be fixed towards the loss of consortium and also towards the loss of love and affection.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellants/claimants lost their breadwinner in the accident that took place on 8.1.2007. Although the first respondent, the owner and rider of the offending Yamaha motorcycle, who was examined as R.W.1, had deposed before the Tribunal that while he was driving the Yamaha motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 30 D 8679 from Illampillai to Salem on the left side of the road, the deceased came in a moped (TVS 50) bearing Registration No. TN 27 J 8683 from the left side foot pathway and hit his motorcycle, as there was no evidence adduced by the second respondent insurance company to corroborate the evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal, accepting the evidence of P.W.2, which was also supported by the First Information Report, Ex.P1 showing that immediately after the accident the first information report was registered against the rider of the Yamaha motorcycle in Crime No.7 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC, has come to the conclusion that the first respondent, being the rider of the offending Yamaha motorcycle, was responsible for the accident. On this basis