The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify compensation based on the deceased's earnings, age, and nature of work, as well as the application of relevant legal provisions and judgments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.553 and 591 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.)

Common Judgment

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 13.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.553 and 591 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. Both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and common award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.553 and 591 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each as compensation for the death of one Pachaiyappan and one Nethaji respectively, who died in the accident that took place on 23.04.2017.

4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of private bus belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of the said bus to pay a sum of Rs.12,02,584/- and Rs.11,21,799/- as compensation to the appellants respectively at the first instance and recover the same from the 1st respondent, owner of the private bus, as he has violated the policy conditions.

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

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in C.M.A.No.1997 of 2021 (M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2017), the deceased Pachaiyappan was aged 45 years at the time of accident, he was working as a Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal without considering the same, fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. In C.M.A.No.2004 of 2021 (M.C.O.P.No.591 of 2017), the deceased Nethaji was aged 16 years at the time of accident, he was working as a Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal without considering the same, fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the appellants have not filed any document with regard to avocation and income of the deceased persons. In the absence of any material with regard to avocation and income of the deceased persons, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased persons in both the claim petitions, which are excessive. The Tribunal afterconsidering 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 both the appeals.

8. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and hence, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials available on record.

10. In C.M.A.No.1997 of 2021 (M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2017), it is the contention of the appellants that the deceased Pachaiyappan was working as a Mason at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The appellants failed to substantiate the said contention. The Tribunal in the ab