The court's decision was influenced by the deceased's notional income, future prospects, and legal precedents in determining the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2014 made in M.C.O.P. No. 5966 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes) Chennai.

This case has been heard through Video Conferencing.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

2. The appeal is filed by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case is that on 12.04.2004, at about 11 p.m. in CTH Road, Ambattur Estate, opposite to V.M. Bajaj showroom, while the deceased Megaraj was trying to cross the road from North to South, the motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-02-X-9213 insured under the United India Insurance Corporation Limited dashed against him resulting in multiple injuries including head injury.

4. The accident victim was taken to the Government General Hospital, Chennai but he died on 13.04.2012. The mother, married sister and unmarried sister aged 28 years joined together and filed claim petition seeking a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation, placing before the Tribunal the fact that the deceased at the time of the accident was 26 years old working as a Bakery Master earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month and the claimants were totally depending on the deceased.

5. The Insurance Company filed counter stating that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and the manner in which the accident occurred was not due to the negligence of the motor cyclist. The Insurance Company also disputed the fact that the motor cyclist had no valid driving license.

6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent has not placed any evidence in support of their counter whereas the claimants have examined three witnesses and marked 9 exhibits. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,43,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest.

7. In this appeal, the claimants have stated that the notional fixation of income of the deceased at Rs. 6000/- is very less taking into consideration his avocation and evidence. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% of the income for personal expenditure, since he had three dependents and as per Sarala Verma judgment, only 1/3 has to be deducted for his personal expenditure. Learned counsel would also submit that the multiplier applied for computing the loss of income based on the age of the mother is incorrect and it should have been based on the age of the deceased. Further, the learned counsel would also state that since the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that future prospect should be a mandatory component for awarding compensation in case of fatal accident, the claimants are entitled for future prospects.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that though the claimants have stated that the deceased was working as a Bakery Master and earning Rs. 12,000/- there is iota of document to show his avocation and income. While so, fixation of income notionally at Rs. 6,000/- is appropriate. However, the learned counsel would fairly concede that since the Tribunal has omitted to award future prospects, the future prospects of 40% shall be added to the notional income of the deceased in tune with the Supreme Court judgment. He had also pointed out that the multiplier as per the Sarala Verma judgment and other judgments reiterated by the Supreme Court, should be the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimants. Therefore, instead of multiplier “11” applied by the Tribunal, multiplier “17” shall be applied. Learned counsel would further submit that in the light of the Pranay Sethy’s case, the award under the other heads has to be reconsidered.

9. Taking note of the rival submissions and reasons, this Court finds that in the absence of any evid