The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on the deceased's profession, age, and various aspects such as loss of dependency, parental and filial consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and transport expenses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2018, dated 13.6.2022, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge(MACT), Madurai, for enhancement of compensation.)

1. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is as follows:

  The deceased is the husband of the first Petitioner/wife(deceased) and father of the minor claimants/appellants 1 and 2 herein. On 9.1.2018, the first respondent was driving his motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 59B 8475 at about 8.45 hours in Madurai Alagal Koil Main Road, near Nayakkanpatti Villakku, from south to North. At that time, the first respondent drew his Motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner from north to south and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased bearing Registration No. TN 57A 6849 and he was succumbed to injuries and died in the hospital on 10.1.2018. Hence the Petitioners have filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.

3. The second respondent/Insurer filed a counter to the effect that the first respondent has driven his motor cycle from north to sought in a moderate speed. The deceased was riding his motor cycle came in the opposite direction without following the traffic rules in a rash and negligent manner and without giving any signal suddenly crossed the road which resulted in the accident.

4. On the side of the Petitioners/claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were marked and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

5. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and FIR filed in this regard, found that only the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,88,664/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

6. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8000/-p.m. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a mason by profession and the accident took place in the year 2018 and being a Mason, he would easily earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed only Rs. 8000/- as monthly income, which according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is not correct

7. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the deceased was a Mason by profession and no documentary evidence was filed in support of his income and further the deceased was negligent in driving his motor cycle.

8. In the light of the above facts, the points that arose for consideration in this appeal is as follows:

  1. Whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the quantum by adopting Rs.8,000/- as notional income?

  2. Whether the claimants are entitled to how much compensation?

9. The finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is not disputed and no cross-appeal is filed by the Insurance Company with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident. The first Petitioner Sathiya is the wife and second and third petitioners are his minor children, aged 6 and 2 and ½ years respectively. The first Petitioner died pending the claim petition. Thereafter, it appears that the fifth claimant has been impleaded and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased. It is relevant to note that P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the deceased was a Mason by profession aged 33 years. This Court is of the view that even according to the Minimum Wages Act, at the relevant point of time, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.12,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal has fixed only Rs.8000/- as notional income. Accordingly, this Court considering