(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2015 made M.C.O.P.No.1884 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri.)

1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.13,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased Sundaram in the accident, the appellants, who are wife, children and parents have preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. It is not necessary for this Court to narrate entire facts in detail qua negligence and liability. It is for the reasons that these things are recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the first respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the second respondent being the insurer of the offending bus bearing registration No.TN-30 AH 1090 is liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. Since the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is based on evidence and also none of these findings are under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent to pay the compensation is confirmed.

4. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation and if so, to what extent.

5. According to the appellants, at the time of accident, the deceased Sundaram was working as driver in Wish Fruit Drink Company, Salem and was getting daily batta of Rs.250/- apart from monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. However, the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and awarded lesser compensation.

6. In her evidence, P.W.1-Mallika deposed that her husband was working under P.W.3 and was drawing salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. She further deposed that her husband was receiving daily batta of Rs.250/-. P.W.1 also produced Ex.P8-salary certificate issued by the Proprietor of Wish Fruit Drink Company, Salem.

7. The Tribunal held that since there was no correlation in respect of Ex.P8-salary certificate and also the appellants failed to produce salary disbursal register, it would be appropriate to fix the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and accordingly, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- for determining the loss of dependency.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the appellants have proved the monthly income of the deceased by way of production of salary certificate and by examining the employer, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as mentioned in the salary certificate. This Court finds some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

9. On a perusal of Ex.P8-salary certificate, it is seen that the Proprietor of Wish Fruit Drink, Salem certified that the deceased was working in their company as driver and he was paid Rs.250/- as daily batta apart from the monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. The second respondent has not produced any rebuttal evidence in respect of Ex.P8-salary certificate. When the appellants have proved the avocation and had also proved the monthly earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have considered Ex.P8-salary certificate and accordingly, determine the compensation. As stated supra, in the absence of rebuttal evidence in respect of salary of the deceased, this Court is inclined to take note of the salary mentioned in Ex.P8 and accordingly, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-.

10. In the case on hand, while determining the compensation, the Tribunal has not taken note of the future prospects of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants argued