The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the deceased's income and the determination of notional income for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Senthilkumar, who died in the accident that took place on 20.08.2017.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident, at about 14.15 hours, when the deceased Senthilkumar was travelling with the respondents 1 to 3 in a TVS XL bearing Registration No.TN-36-H-4929, along the left side of the ABT Road, four road opposite to Sona Bakery in South to North direction, while turning the vehicle to right side to reach Old Bus Stand after showing necessary hand signal and using indicator, the driver of the Mini Bus Sabari bearing Registration No.TN 39 AF 6358, owned by the 5th respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the TVS XL and caused the accident. In the accident, the respondents 1 to 3 along with the said Senthilkumar sustained severe injuries. Due to the head injury and injuries all over the body, the said Senthilkumar died on 21.08.2017. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Mini Bus Sabari and hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed claim petition against the 5th respondent and appellant as owner and insurer of the Mini Bus Sabari.

4. The 5th respondent, owner of the Mini Bus Sabari, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Mini Bus Sabari, owned by the 5th respondent. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that at the time of accident, the driver of the said Mini Bus Sabari possessed valid driving license to ply the vehicle, failing which, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. In any event, the respondents 1 to 4 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Paulraj was examined as P.W.2 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P24. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Mini Bus Sabari, owned by the 5th respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 31.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.2068 of 2017, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the respondents 1 to 4 have not filed any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal, erroneously relying on the evidence of P.W.1, who is an interested witness, fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any material evidence