IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company, reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC) regarding the determination of notional income and compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2022 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3313 of 2018 on the file of II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3313 of 2018 dated 30.11.2022.

2. On 29.03.2018, at about 19.20 hours, the deceased namely Mr.Raji, while crossing the road, was hit by a car bearing Reg.No.TN- 14-D-7425, which came in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants, being the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased made a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

3. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,70,600/-. Being not satisfied with the same, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Painter and earning a sum of Rs.700/- per day. However, without considering the same, the Tribunal had erroneously fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which is very meager, and the same needs to be modified and enhanced by this Court. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards “transportation”, and the same may be awarded by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate enhancement of the compensation in favour of the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Assurance Company would fairly submit that any fair amount towards notional income may be re-determined by this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. In the present case, as noticed above, at the time of accident, the deceased was a Painter and aged about 53 years, earning a sum of Rs.700/- per day. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal at a sum of Rs.12,000/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, this Court, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company, reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC), wherein the Apex Court fixed the notional monthly income even for a vegetable vendor at Rs.6,500/-, who sustained injuries in the accident occurred in the year 2008, by applying the multiplier based on cost inflation index, in the absence of any proof for income, it would come more than a sum of Rs.13,000/-. Taking into consideration of the nature of employment of the deceased and applying the cost inflation, this Court feels it appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, which is just and fair. Thus, by fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-; adding 10% future prospects; deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses; and by adopting right multiplier of 11' (since the deceased was aged 53 years), the compensation towards Loss of Dependency is calculated as under:-

8. Consequently, the sum of Rs.11,61,600/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'Loss of Dependency' is hereby modified to Rs.16,33,500/-. Further, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards “transportation”. Hence, this Court is inclined to