The main legal point established in the judgment is the modification of compensation based on the deceased's income, personal expenses, and legal representative's entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award and judgment dated 04.01.2012 made in MCOP.Nos.559 & 509 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Tract Court No.2) Poonamallee.)

(These Appeal have been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the respective claimants seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned common award dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.2, Poonamallee in MCOP.Nos.559 & 509 of 2012 respectively. CMA.No.2734 of 2014 arises out of MCOP.No.559 of 2012 and CMA.No.2735 of 2014 arises out of MCOP.No.509 of 2012.

2. The findings of the Tribunal under the impugned common award as regards the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle has attained finality, since no appeal has been filed by the second respondent insurance company challenging the said findings.

3. The only question involved in these appeals are whether the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal for the respective claimants is a just compensation or not.

4. The Tribunal under the impugned award has awarded the compensation to the claimant in MCOP.No.559 of 2012 as detailed hereunder:

5. The Tribunal under the impugned award has awarded the compensation to the claimant in MCOP.No.509 of 2012 as detailed hereunder:

6. Before the Tribunal, both the claimants have filed eleven documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The respective claimants have also examined four witnesses namely the claimant in MCOP.No.559 of 2010 as PW1, the third claimant in MCOP.No.509 of 2010 as PW2, an eye witness to the accident as PW3 and the first claimant in MCOP.No.509 of 2010 as PW4. On the side of the second respondent insurance company, neither any witness was examined nor any document filed.

7. Heard, Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj learned counsel for the Appellants in both the Appeals and Mrs.R.Sreevidya, learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.

CMA.No.2734 of 2014 (MCOP.No.559 of 2010)

8. The Appellant/claimant in her claim petition has claimed that the deceased was aged 27 years, working as a two wheeler mechanic and earning a monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. Since the Appellant/claimant did not file any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- as monthly income, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased on notional basis at Rs.4,000/-. The accident happened on 09.05.2010. The cause of the accident has also not been disputed by the second respondent insurance company as seem from the evidence available on record. Considering the year of the accident which is 2010, that too, when the appellant has claimed that the deceased was a two wheeler mechanic though not supported by any documentary evidence, the fixation of Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased in the considered view of this Court is too low. This court is of the considered view that the notional income of the deceased has to be fixed at Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased is enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month.

9. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has applie