JUDGMENT :

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.

2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge (FAC), Puducherry.

3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge (FAC), Puducherry. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Nadana Sabapathy, who died in the accident that took place on 18.08.2013.

4.According to respondents 1 to 4, on 18.08.2013 at about 06.45 P.M., while the deceased Nadana Sabapathi was walking as pedestrian on the ECR Road, Pakkamudayanpet, Puducherry and crossing towards East to West near Papsco Vegetable Shop, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 68 D 3222 who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner from South to North direction after Chain Factory Signal at a high speed, dashed against the said Nadana Sabapathi and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Nadana Sabapathi was thrown away and sustained fatal injuries on his head. Immediately after the accident, the said Nadana Sabapathy was taken to Jipmer Hospital. Inspite of the treatment, the said Nadana Sabapathi succumbed to injuries on 21.08.2013. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Nadana Sabapathy against the 5th respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the bus respectively.

5.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by 5th respondent and directed the 5th respondent and appellant to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

6.Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.798 of 2013, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The respondents 2 to 4 are not the dependants of the deceased. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that the deceased was a Painting Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. There are 4 dependants of the deceased and the respondents 2 to 4 are brothers and sister of the deceased and they are also dependants of the deceased and they are also entitled to compensation. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (2) TNMAC 169, [Anthony Birnath Mary @ Anthony Mary and others Vs. M.Akbar Ali and others], held that even married sisters of the deceased are legal representative and entitled to compensation and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. In view of the same, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9.Though notice has been served on the 5th respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him, either in person or through counsel.

10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counse