The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to determine and modify the compensation for loss of dependency and other related claims.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.3862 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai- 104.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.11.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.3862 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai- 104.

2. The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3862 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai-104. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1 Crore as compensation for the death of one Karthikeyan, who died in the accident that took place on 04.06.2018.

3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus belonging to the respondent/Transport Corporation and directed the respondent/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.17,45,000/- as compensation to the appellants.

4. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased Karthikeyan was a B.E. degree holder, he was doing water proofing work at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The deceased was appointed as Trainee in Rane TRW Steering Systems Limited and he has completed the course in February 2013 as Diploma Trainee. The Tribunal without considering the same, fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The deceased Karthikeyan was aged 29 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects and any compensation towards loss of estate. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation contended that the appellants have not filed any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any material with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is excessive. The Tribunal after considering all the materials on record, awarded compensation, which is not meagre. The appellants have not made out any case for enhancement of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials available on record.

8. It is the contention of the appellants that the deceased Karthikeyan was a B.E. degree holder, he was appointed as Trainee in Rane TRW Steering Systems Limited and he has completed the course in February 2013 as Diploma Trainee. To prove the said contention, the appellants have marked course completion certificate and training completion certificate as Exs.P6 and P7 respectively. At the time of accident, the deceased was doing water proofing work and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The appellants failed to substantiate the said contention. The Tribunal in the absence of any evidence with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2018 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the age and nature of work done by the