The main legal point established is the entitlement of legal representatives to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, irrespective of dependency.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.8625 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

Not being satisfied by the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No. 8625 of 2015 on 04.12.2019, the appellants / claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased G.Prabhunathan under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and Rule 3 of MACT Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of said G.Prabhunathan, who died in the road accident that had taken place on 23.09.2015.

3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides'' evidence and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- and directed the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would vehemently contend that the deceased was a Painter and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month at the relevant point of time and the appellants proved the same by producing Tamil Nadu Building Construction Employees Union Membership Card. But the Tribunal failed to consider the said document and fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month which is on the lower side. The Tribunal failed to add future prospects and also deducted 50% towards personal expenses, which are incorrect. The amounts awarded under loss of love and affection at Rs.10,000/- each for the appellants is on the lower side. No amount was granted by the Tribunal under loss of estate and transport expenses and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company would strenuously submit that all the appellants are married sons of the deceased and they are not depending upon the deceased for their livelihood and hence, 50% deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased is reasonable. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are also sufficient and the award needs no interference and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsels for appellants and 2nd respondent - Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record.

7. From the materials available on record, it is seen that on 23.09.2015 at about 21.00 hours, while the deceased G.Prabhunathan was walking along T.H.Road, the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 18 Q 0934 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the deceased G.Prabhunathan. In the said impact, the said G.Prabhunathan sustained fatal injuries and died, is not in dispute.

8. As regards the age of the deceased, it has been stated that the deceased was aged 57 years at the relevant point of time. To substantiate the same, the appellants did not mark any document. As per Ex.P3 – Post mortem certificate, the deceased was aged 59 years. Relying upon the same, age of the deceased is taken as 59 years.

9. As regards, the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, it is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Painter. To prove the avocation, the appellants / claimants have marked Tamil Nadu Building Construction Employees Union Membership Card as Ex.P5.

10. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance, reported in [2014 1 TNMAC 459 (SC)] has fixed the notional income of an injured, a vegetable vendor aged 24 years at the time of accident, at Rs.6,500/- per month for the accident that occurred in the year 2008.

11. This Court deems fit t