The court's decision emphasized the importance of accurately determining the deceased's income for calculating compensation, relying on bank statements and considering fluctuations and deductions.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated 06.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 369 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai))

1. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in and by award dated 06.11.2019 made in MCOP No. 369 of 2018, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are the claimants before the Tribunal, for enhancement of compensation amount.

2. The appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased V. Jayanthan. It is the case of the appellants/claimants before the Tribunal that on 12.12.2017, at about 18.45 hours, the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 02 AU 1478 to K.G. Signature, Service Road, East Side By-pass Road, Nolambur, Chennai - 600 095. At that time, the car owned by the first respondent herein bearing Registration No. TN 13 A 4183 came from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. In the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident and was working as a Rank II Officer, Navig-8, Ship Management Service Limited, Mumbai and earning a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal against the owner of the car as well as its insurer, claiming a sum of Rs.10 crores as compensation for the death of their son.

3. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter statement before the Tribunal denying the various allegations made by the claimants in the claim petition with respect to the age, occupation and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. In order to prove the averments made in the claim petition, on the side of the claimants, second claimant/father of the deceased was examined as PW1 besides examining one T. Murthy, an eye witness to the occurrence, as PW2. That apart, three other witnesses were examined to prove the employment and income earned by the deceased, as PWs 3 to 5. The claimants have also marked Exs. P1 to P28 on their side. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined but one document was marked as Ex.R1, during the cross-examination of PW1. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Registration No. TN 13 A 4813 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.71,95,000/- in favour of the claimants. The breakup of the award amount is as follows:-

5. As against the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal. This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation.

6. Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal, while calculating the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, had taken only a sum of Rs.70,000/- as monthly income inspite of the fact that the claimants have filed documentary proof to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per month, which resulted in awarding an inadequate compensation of Rs.71,40,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that atleast a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per annum as monthly income has to be taken and consequently the amount awarded by the Tri