The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions from specific judgments to determine compensation for loss of income, future prospects, and loss of consortium in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.996 of 2016, on the file of the Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Vellore.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellantsclaimants seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 12.03.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.996 of 2016, on the file of the Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Vellore.

2. The appellants/claimants filed M.C.O.P. No.996 of 2016, on the file of the Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Vellore, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Balaji who died in the accident that took place on 01.11.2016.

3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car owned by the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.15,67,584/- 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.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that at the time of accident, the deceased Balaji was doing Textile Business and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. They have filed Ex.P8 – Income Tax Returns to show that the annual income of the deceased Balaji was Rs.3,38,318/-. The respondents have not filed any document to disprove the said document filed by the claimants. The Tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to the 1st appellant and loss of love and affection to the appellants 2 to 4 are meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

6. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.

7. Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and their name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the entire materials available on record.

9. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased Balaji was aged 45 years and doing Textile Business in the name and style 'Divya Textiles'. To prove the same, they have filed and marked Ex.P7 – letter pad of Divya Textiles and Ex.P8 – Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the appellants have not examined any of the partners of the said Divya Textiles and on perusal of Ex.P8, it is not clear that the income received from the said business is lost, rightly rejected Exs.P7 and P8. In the absence of any evidence by the appellants to show that after the death of the deceased Balaji, the said Textiles Business is closed and there is complete loss to the family, this Court is not inclined to fix the monthly income based on Ex.P8 – Income Tax Returns filed by the deceased. The accident is of the year 2009. The Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. Considering the year of accident and nature of work done by the deceased Balaji, the notional income of the deceased, fixed by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], erroneously grant