The court applied relevant Supreme Court rulings to determine compensation for the deceased's death in a road accident.

JUDGMENT :

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.7100 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No. 7100 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The case in brief is as follows: On 28.03.2010 at about 7.15 pm, while the deceased was walking along Nellikuppam Road, From Guduvanchery towards Kayarambedu, at that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-19-S-3413 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died.

3. Mr.M.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 57 years. As per the claim petition, the claimant is a widow and they do not have children. As per the claim petition, the deceased/ husband of the claimant was working as a Basic health Worker, Zone VI Corporation of Chennai. On the date of accident, he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, totally from his employment in the Corporation of Chennai and as Gurukkal in a temple. In the enquiry, no document was marked as proof of income. Therefore, the Tribunal had observed that both avocations, namely, health worker and Gurukkal in the temple, cannot co-exist as both would require going to the working place early in the morning. Therefore, rejecting the claim as regards the avocation of the deceased, the learned Judge had fixed a sum of Rs.9,000/- as notional income and had calculated the loss of income. Therefore, only a meagre amount was awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the sole claimant has preferred this appeal.

4. Mrs.R.Srividhya., learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/Respondent has submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, only claimant is the widow. In the absence of any proof of income, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. Therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted. This appeal lacks merit and it has to be dismissed.

5. Point for consideration Whether the claimant/appellant is entitled to enhancement of the award amount.

6. Perused the petition and counter in MCOP.No.7100 2016 and the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and the grounds of appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement.

7. It is found that in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- which is found to be meagre. Considering the present cost of living and the date of accident and following the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 (1) TNMAC 598 (SC) (M.Shivakumar Vs. The Managing Director, BMTC) extracted hereunder,

Fixation of- Personal Injury case- Injured/Claimant/Appellant aged 45 yrs., a Painter earning around Rs.15,000 to Rs.16,500 p.m., - Suffered 40% disability in accident that took place on 16.08.2013- Tribunal, in absence of any evidence on record, fixed Monthly Income at Rs.5,500/- p.m., considering nature of work as Painter- High Court in Appeal fixed Income at Rs.6,500 p.m., in any dispute with regard to age and avocation – If, proper-Claimant, a Casual Worker doing Painting work by going place to place, cannot be expected to produce evidence with regard to income- Claimant rightly made selfestimation at Rs.15000 to Rs.16500 p.m., - High Court, in absence of any serious dispute with regard to avocation and income, ought to have accepted evidence of Claimant – Apex Court tak