IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the importance of fixing the notional income of the deceased and clarified the liability in a motor accident case.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award against the judgement and decree dated 30.08.2022 made in MACTOP.No.395 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai.)

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 made in MACTOP.No.395 of 2018.

2. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that on 11.03.2018, when one Siva @ Sivasankar was travelling in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-09-BE-1402 as a pillion rider from Kallakurichi to Tiruvannamalai, a Van bearing Registration No.TN-73-B-9093 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler, due to which the said Dhasarathan was died on the spot. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation in the following manner:

3. He would further submit that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 9 years. By refering the judgement rendered by this Court in C.M.A.No.2372 of 2022, she would submit that for the accident occurred in the year 2018, this Court had fixed the notional income of the deceased, who was aged about 10 years, as a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, she requests this Court to apply the same to the present case and pass appropriate orders. Further, with regard to all the other heads, since the same are just and reasonable, she requests this Court to confirm the same.

4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair and hence, he requests this Court to confirm the same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the documents available on records.

6. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 9 years old and the Tribunal had fixed the notional income as a sum of Rs.40,000/- per annum. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident. The only issue that has to be decided is with regard to the fixation of notional income of the deceased. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, in C.M.A.No.2372 of 2022, while awarding compensation, this Court had fixed the notional income of the deceased, who was aged about 10 years, as a sum of Rs.60,000/- per annum. The said judgment will squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, by following the said judgment, this Court is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.60,000/- per annum as notional income of the deceased. Hence, by applying the multiplier as 15, the loss of income would be calculated as follows:

Rs.60,000 (notional income) * 15 (multiplier) = Rs.9,00,000/-

7. Further, since the deceased is minor, no future prospects is required to be added. Hence, the compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Future Prospects is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in the present case, though 4 persons were traveled in a two-wheeler at the time of accident, no negligence was fastened against the rider of the two-wheeler. Hence, he requests this Court to re-consider the aspect of fastening of liability against the rider of two-wheeler.

9. Upon perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that after considering the oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal had rightly fastened the entire liability against the Van driver and there is no evidence to show that the accident was occurred due to the fault on the part of rider of the two-wheeler. Further, it is not fair to fasten the liability against the rider of the two-wheeler for traveling with 3 pillion riders since it is only a statutory violat