The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-evaluation of the notional income and other relevant factors to determine the compensation amount in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgement dated 02.08.2013 MACT.O.P.No.5869 of 2011, on the file of the IV Small Causes Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.)

1. The legal heirs of the deceased Suresh who are the petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, are the appellants before this Court. The appellants had filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- for the death of the said Suresh in a road accident on 08.07.2011.

2. It is the case of the appellants that on the said date at about 3.45 PM, the deceased was walking alone at Chennai Bangalore highway and when he neared Saint Gobian Co., a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.TN 23 AM 0151 belonging to the 1st respondent and driven by him in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from behind causing fatal injuries to him. The appellants had therefore claimed a compensation from the 1st respondent being the owner cum driver and the 2nd respondent, the insurer.

3. Though the 1st respondent had entered appearance through counsel, later he did not file his counter and therefore was set ex parte.

4. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter inter alia denying the allegations contained in the claim statement and stating that the appellants had sought for an excessive compensation as they had denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased.

5. The Tribunal by its award dated 02.08.2013 proceeded to hold that the accident had occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and had fixed a notional income of Rs.6,000/-. After deducting a 1/5th amount towards personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal arrived at a pecuniary loss of Rs.9,79,200/- and ultimately arrived at a total compensation of Rs.11,19,200/-.

6. The appellants are aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.3, the employer of the deceased who had deposed that the deceased was working in his shop and earning at least a sum of Rs.500/- to Rs.550/- per day. The witness would state that the deceased was engaged in fixing punctures. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under the head of loss of love and affection.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the accident had taken place in the year 2011 and the appellants had in their claim petition stated that the deceased is a Mechanic cum Driver, whereas, P.W.3 would submit that he is engaged in fixing punctures. Therefore, the notional income adopted is in order and does not require any revision. That apart, the amounts awarded under the other heads also are well in order.

8. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

9. The appellants have examined P.W.3 to show that the deceased Suresh was working under him and there is no rebuttal to the same. Therefore, a notional income of Rs.7,500/- can be adopted.

10. It is also seen that the Tribunal has not granted any amounts towards future prospects. Therefore, monthly notional income would be Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/- = Rs.10,500/-. The annual notional income would be a sum of Rs.1,26,000/-. Out of this amount, 1/5th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the annual contribution to the family would be a sum of Rs.1,00,800/-. To this, a multiplier of 17 has to adopted and the amount under the head of pecuniary loss will work out to a sum of Rs.17,13,600/-.

11. The appellants 2 to 6 are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of Love and Affection. That apart, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded under the head of Loss of Estate. Therefore, the compensation shall be enhanced to a sum of Rs.18,88,600/-.

12. The award of the Tribunal below is re-worked as follows: