The Court applied precedent cases to determine the notional income of the deceased, influencing the enhancement of the compensation award.

1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, dated 07.06.2012 made in MCOP.No.723 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge and Special Judge for EC Act Cases, Salem, the petitioners/claimants have come forward with this present appeal seeking to enhancement of the award amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to in this judgment as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners is that on 17.02.2008 at about 07.30 a.m., the deceased was travelling as pillion rider in a Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-09-AH-2048, near Kattiampandal bridge in Uthiramerur, due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by its rider Rajulu, the two wheeler dashed against the tree on the road side resulting in the death of both the persons. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the two wheeler rider only. As the owner and insurer of the vehicle, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and the petitioners are his parents. The deceased was P.G. student and if he has lived, he would have earned lot of money and taken care of his parents/the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. On the other hand, opposing the claim petition, the second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter contending that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioners. Even though, the rider of the two wheeler was going at normal speed, the deceased who was travelling as a pillion rider fell down from the motor cycle due to his negligence suffered injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the deceased contributed to the accident. The claim of the petitioners about the age and status of the deceased is not admitted. The claim of the petitioners is exorbitant. Thus, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and produced documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 to substantiate their claim. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of available evidence on record, found the negligence of the first respondent two wheeler rider alone caused the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners/claimants have come forward with the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Petitioners contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly. The documents produced as Ex.P5 to Ex.P18 clearly prove the deceased was a bright student and considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional income of the deceased much higher then Rs.3,000/- per month fixed by it. The future prospects was not considered properly. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads are very nominal. Thus, the petitioners sought for enhancement of the award amount by entertaining the appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company contends that the deceased being a student, it is only on presumption that he will earn much in future, the notional income is sought to be fixed, and as such the Tribunal correctly fixed the amount as monthly income and there is no need to enhance the same. The Tribunal has passed just and fair award and no ground is made out to enhance the same. Thus, the second respondent sought for dismissal of this appeal.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel appearing