The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident claim and the calculation of compensation based on previous court rulings.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, III, at Poonamallee.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioners is that on 17.10.2013, at about 11 p.m., as the deceased was driving his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-CT-2928 from Perungaluthur to Kolapakkam, on the left side of the Nedungundram road, opposite to Harinarayana Stores, the 1st respondent vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-57-U-6393 came at high speed, dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was proceeding, resulting in his instant death. The Petitioners who are the parents and sister of the deceased contend that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent lorry driver. Further they claim that the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from his employment in the Private concern at Chennai. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the Petitioners lost the source of income and seeks a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. On the other hand, opposing the petition, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contends that the accident did not occur as alleged by the Petitioners. The claim of the Petitioners about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is not true. The driver of the 1st respondent vehicle is not responsible for the accident. The validity of the driving licence possessed by the 1st respondent is disputed. The deceased also contributed to the accident due to his negligent driving. As such, the 2nd respondent disputes the claim of the Petitioners and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioners examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 produced documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 to prove their claim. On the side of the 2nd respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, on the basis of available evidence on record found that the negligence of the 1st respondent Lorry driver alone is the cause for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.7,33,580/- as compensation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the award, the Petitioners have come forward with the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5762/- instead of Rs.10,000/- per month as stated in the Petition. The Tribunal ought to have added 100% of the income towards Future Prospects. The deceased was aged 23 years old and was having very good future prospects and the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount towards Future Prospects. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is also very low. Hence, the Petitioners seek enhancement of the award amount.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contends that the age, avocation and income of the deceased was not proved and the award passed by the tribunal itself is on the higher side. The deceased contributed to the accident by his negligent driving. As such, the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. Hence, the 2nd respondent seeks dismissal of the appeal.

7. The Petitioners state that on 17.10.2013, at around 11 p.m., due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent Lorry driver, the accident took place. The Police registered the case against the driver of the said Lorry driver only as evidenced by Ex.P.1-FIR. The driving licence of the deceased is produced as Ex.P.6. Hence, the deceased was having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The eyewitness to the occurrence who deposed as P.W.2 stated that while he was retur