JUDGMENT :

(The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2015 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1761 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.

1. The judgment and decree dated 14.07.2015 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1761 of 2011 by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The claimants, who are the appellants herein, have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The accident occurred on 17.09.2008 at about 11.30 Hours at Dharmapuri to Salem Main Road, near Dr.Subramanian Thottam. The Devattipatti Police Station registered a case in Crime No.438 of 2008 under Sections 279, 337 and 304 (A) of IPC.

4. The deceased, at the time of accident, was aged about 37 years and was working as Electronics Technician at H1-F1, Solutions No.267, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. The monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs.25,000/- in the claim petition. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained serious multiple injuries and died.

5. The claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants, who are the wife and minor son of the deceased, before the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties.

7. As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal relied on the First Information Report (FIR) as well as the oral evidence of PW-2 Mr.Rafi. The FIR as well as the deposition of PW-2 corroborates and the respondents had not rebutted or produced any contra evidence to disbelieve the contentions in the FIR as well as the evidence of PW-2. Thus, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP-02-T-2439 is responsible for the cause of the accident and consequently, the second respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the appellants-claimants.

8. Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,77,000/-. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants contended that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is erroneous and the deceased was working as an Electronics Technician and the claimants had filed the Income Tax particulars. Though the Income Tax particulars were marked as documents before the Tribunal, the Tribunal without considering all those documents, arrived a unilateral conclusion that the monthly salary of the deceased is to be fixed as Rs.9,000/-. Thus, the claimants have chosen to file the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants-claimants, by stating that the claimants had not produced any other Salary Certificate or details regarding the monthly salary. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month for the purpose of quantifying the compensation. This apart, the Tribunal has considered all these aspects and accordingly, granted a reasonable compensation and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants-claimants had established the factum regarding the accident. The Tribunal made a categorical finding that the driver of the lorry had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Thus, the lorry driver has committed an act of negligence.

12. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the wife and the m