JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.09.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.596 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special District Judge, Salem.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award, dated 19.09.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.596 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special District Judge, Salem.

2. The appellants are claimants before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.596 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special District Judge, Salem. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rathinam, who died in the accident that took place on 14.02.2016. According to the claimants, on 14.02.2016 at about 7.00 pm, the deceased was riding Hero Passion pro motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 90 A 2740. On the extreme left side of the Salem to Kondalampatti main Road, towards Kondalampatti near Kondalampatti fly over Coimbatore privu road, a Car bearing Registration No.TN 60 L 3074 was proceeding in front of the two wheeler driven by the deceased and all of a sudden, the driver of the car without observing traffic rules and any signals, returned on the back side and hit against the two wheeler of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased thrown out from the vehicle and he sustained head injuries and died on spot.

3. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement before the Tribunal denying the manner in which the accident had taken place. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and other particulars furnished by the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, in order to sustain the averments made in the claim petition, the 1st claimant/wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and one Shanmugam was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P27 were marked on the side of the claimants. The respondents neither examined any witness nor produced any documents in support of their defence.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car, belonging to the first respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.17,04,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

6. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Second respondent Insurance Company has not filed any appeal in so far as it relates to the liability fixed upon them.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was 46 years at the time of accident and he was working as an electrical contractor in Tamilnadu Electricity Board and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. It is the specific contention of the appellants that due to the death of the deceased, they have lost their sole bread winner of the family. But, the Tribunal has fixed a meagre sum of Rs.12,000/- as monthly income of the deceased instead, a sum of Rs.20,000/- ought to have been fixed as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. The amounts granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium are also meagre. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would only support the award passed by the Tribunal as reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and peru