JUDGMENT :

Since the Insurance Company is not disputing the liability, notice to the fourth respondent is deemed unnecessary.

2. The Insurance company is on appeal questioning the award of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Valliappan in a Motor Accident. Claimants, who are the parents and sister of the deceased lodged a claim seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- contending that Valliappan died due to the accident when the Tipper Lorry bearing TN 22- BS-0569 was driven in the reverse direction by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Claiming that the petitioners have lost both financial and moral support because of the death, they sought for compensation.

3. This is resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the accident did not happen in the manner suggested by the claimants. The Insurance Company also objected to the quantum of compensation claimed and denied the existence of insurance.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as PW-2. Exs. P-1 to P-7 were marked. The respondent Insurance Company did not let in either oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that it was the negligence of the lorry driver which caused the accident and as the insurer the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

5. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/- adding 40% future prospectus and arrived at a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-, deducting 50% for personal expenses, applying multiplier of 18', the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.8,90,000/-. A sum of Rs.80,000/- was granted towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation arrived at by the Tribunal was Rs.20,00,000/-.

6. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and M/s. Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

7. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side since the Tribunal as taken the monthly income of Rs.12,500/-. The deceased was aged about 18 years and three months at the time of accident and considering the fact that the accident had taken place on 17.11.2015. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel would further submit that the notional provisional income of Rs.12,500/- is on the higher side. According to him, in the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal should have taken only Rs.10,000/-. In view of the absence of any evidence on the side of the Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is unable to canvass the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal on the question of negligence.

8. M/s. Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal has applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 9 Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another] reported in [2009 4 MLJ SC 997] and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in [2017 MACD 137], and fixed the pecuniary loss at Rs.8,90,000/- and as such there is no need for interference by this Court on the quantum of compensation.

9. I have considered the rival submission.

10. The deceased was pursuing second year Diploma in Electronics in a Polytechnic. He was also the only son of the claimants 1 and 2. Therefore, this Court has to take a liberal view on the compensation. No doubt loss of son cannot be compensated monetarily at the same time, the Court has to balance between the loss and the uncertainties of life.

11. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the monthly notional income could be fixed at Rs.11,000/- while confirming the compensation granted on the other heads. If the monthly notional income is fixed at Rs.11,000/- and 40% is adopted future prospectus, the monthly income would come to Rs.15,400/-, deducting half towards his perso