The Court considered the deceased's qualifications, age, and future prospects to determine the notional income and enhance the compensation accordingly.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.4275 of 2018 dated 09.11.2021 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 1 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the parents and the wife of the deceased, who are the claimants, challenging the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.4275 of 2018 dated 09.11.2021 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.4275 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. They filed the Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Senthilkumar, in the accident that took place on 14.06.2018.

3. According to the appellants, on 14.06.2018, at about 17.00 hrs, while the deceased was standing near Tea shop, the driver of the respondent/Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-1086 had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased; that due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The claimants, therefore, filed a Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter denying all the averments made in the Claim Petition that the driver of the respondent/Transport Corporation was rash and negligent at the time of accident. The driver had followed the traffic Rules and drove the bus in the right direction. The deceased had negligently crossed the road without seeing the bus approaching him. Therefore, the respondent/Transport Corporation is not liable to pay compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs. P1 to P11. On the side of the respondent/Transport Corporation, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the respondent/Transport Corporation amd awarded the compensation of Rs.17,18,300/-. The Tribunal directed that the 1st appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,68,300/- and the 2nd and 3rd appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- each.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the deceased had a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and was also pursuing B.E. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was working in a Private Company and also doing agricultural business and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The Tribunal had erroneously taken the notional income as Rs.9,000/- which is very meagre and considering the fact that the accident was of the year 2018, the Tribunal ought to have taken a higher notional income. The learned counsel relied upon the orders passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.1635 of 2020, dated 09.02.2023 and C.M.A.No.1258 of 2021, dated 17.04.2021 in support of her contention. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation under the head “Loss of love and affection”awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- each is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd appellants and hence, prayed for enhancement the compensation under the head of “loss of love and affection”. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation under the head “Loss of Estate”has to be taken at Rs.15,000/- which has been omitted by the Tribunal and hence, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the same.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation submitte