The court emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of the case and cited relevant judgments to support their decision on contributory negligence and notional income.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2021 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.6253 & 6250/2018 respectively on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

Common Judgment:

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same accident and are taken up for disposal by way of this common judgment.

2. Two persons, viz., Jamuna, the mother and Kamalesh, the son, died in the same accident. The two Original Petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.6253/2014 & 6250/2014 were filed by the dependants namely Kothandaraman who is the husband of Jamuna and father of Kamalesh and minor Shobana who is the daughter of Jamuna and sister of Kamalesh.

3. By a common award dated 08.02.2021, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, had allowed the petitions by awarding a total sum of Rs.14,04,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.6250/2018 and Rs.12,37,600/- in M.C.O.P.No.6253/2018. Not satisfied with the quantum, the claimants are on appeal before this Court.

4. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.Elango, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in this case, the accident took place in the year 2018. Firstly, the trial Court had deducted 20% of the total compensation on the ground of contributory negligence. When the offending lorry is parked on highway, there was no question of deduction of contributory negligence and in this case, no contra evidence was also let in by the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased in any manner contributed to the accident. Secondly, it is his contention that in both the cases, in the absence of positive proof of income, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been taken as notional income. In this regard, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.1635/2020 wherein, in respect of an accident which happened in the year 2018, this Court, after considering the issue, had taken the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel would also cite the judgments of Division Benches in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Neela and another reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 3304 and Maheshwari and others vs. V.Vimal and others in C.M.A.Nos.149 & 740/2021 to demonstrate that this Court had even taken more than Rs.15,000 i.e., Rs.18,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as notional income in those cases. Therefore, he would submit that the quantum awarded by the trial Court is on the lower side and requires interference.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been uniformly taken as notional income and as a matter of fact, he circulated two other judgments of this Court of the learned single Judge (C.M.A.Nos.342 & 887 of 2022 and C.M.A.No.710/2021) to contend that the notional income is rightly taken as Rs.10,000/-. He would also submit that when the vehicle was not stopped and dashed against the stationary vehicle, the Tribunal was right in deducting 20% as contributory negligence.

7. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

8. The points raised for consideration in these appeals are:

i) Whether or not the trial Court is right in deducting 20% of the compensation as contributory negligence?

ii) Whether or not the trial Court is right in taking the notional monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and arriving at the compensation?

9. Point No.(i): It can be seen in this case that the offending vehicle was parked on the highway. That is only the sole and proximate reason for the accident and on the facts and circumstances of this case