IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the application of notional income and future prospects in compensation calculations, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

[PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award and decree dated 10.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.7316 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.]

Feeling aggrieved with the Award passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai' [henceforth 'Tribunal' for brevity] in M.C.O.P.No.7316 of 2016, the second respondent / Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claim Original Petition.

3. The case of the petitioners is that on September 27, 2016 at about 12.30 hours, the petitioners' son R.Babu was travelling as a pillion rider on the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN05-BC-6010 from Chennai towards Tada at NH-16 Road. While nearing Akkampet Village, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Motorcycle, the petitioners' son fell off the bike onto the road. Due to the accident, the petitioners son sustained severe head injuries and immediately, he was admitted in Global Hospital and then referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day viz., September 27, 2016. At the time of the accident, the petitioners' son was working as a Computer Operator in a Private concern. Hence, the petitioners filed a Motor Claim Original Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakh Only). The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The first respondent's vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners seek compensation against both respondents.

4. The first respondent - owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter whereby, it denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. Further, the second respondent / Insurance Company denied the manner of the accident.

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr. Mageshkumar, was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, one Mr. Senthilvel was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.3 were marked.

7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the first respondent. The Tribunal further held that though the petitioners have stated that their son / deceased earned a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary, they have not produced any documents to substantiate their claim. Hence, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as notional income of the petitioners son / deceased R.Babu. At the time of accident, the petitioners' son was a Bachelor. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- as compensation under various heads as tabulated hereunder :

8. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the second respondent / Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was 18 years old. The petitioners have not produced any documents to show that their son R. Babu / deceased was working as a Computer Operator. Under such circumstances, fixing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as notional income is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection' an