JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed as against the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Additional District Judge and Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.1540 of 2009 dated 15.06.2011 awarding a sum of Rs.3,89,000/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- for the loss of life of the deceased aged about 37 years at the time of accident on 19.08.2009. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the award granted by the learned Tribunal, the claimants who are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased have come forward with the present appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants claimed that the award granted by the learned Tribunal is meagre. He would contend that the Tribunal having observed that the deceased aged about 37 years had died in the accident on 19.08.2009 at about 17.30 hours while he was riding the motorcycle. Due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver of the trailer lorry which was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, has assessed the award amount only by considering the income of the deceased who was working as a Mason only at Rs.100/- and after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards his personal expenses, arrived at Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency and added only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. He would further contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection, towards loss of consortium, and towards 40% of future prospects. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal has not dealt with the matter in proper perspective and awarded a very meagre amount as compensation which requires to be enhanced. He would further contend that the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of his death and he was the only bread winner on whom the appellants herein were dependent. The Tribunal taking into account that no documentary evidence in regard to income and occupation, it has notionally fixed a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards monthly income (Rs.100/- per day) of the deceased which has no logical reasoning.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has considered the entire case of the claimants as well as the evidence on record and come to the right conclusion by awarding just compensation of Rs.3,89,000/- which requires no interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record and the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

Point for Consideration :

Whether the Tribunal has awarded a meagre award as compensation and which requires modification by enhancing the same.

5. This Court finds merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. It is not in dispute that the deceased died at the age of 37 years. On the fateful day i.e., on 19.08.2009 at about 17.30 hours, while he was riding his motorcycle and died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that he died leaving behind the young wife and his daughter and his mother, the 1st appellant/claimant has categorically deposed that her husband was working as Mason and was earning monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. Of course she had not filed any document to prove the same. However since the deceased was working as a Mason, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact regarding the notional income attributed to skilled workers such as Mason would be in the range of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- in the year 2009. It would be just and fair for this Court to fix Rs.7,500/- as notional income of the deceased. The deceased died at the age of 37, the correct multiplier is 15'. Accordingly, the loss of dependency can be arr