Enhancement of compensation due to adjustment of notional income, acknowledgment of future prospects, and confirmation of liability for accident damages.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.887 of 2021, dated 19.01.2024, the claimants have come before this Court.

2. According to the appellants/claimants, the wife of 1^st claimant and mother of claimants 2 to 4 namely Sendamarai died in a road accident that had occurred on 27.12.2020. According to the claimants, the victim was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 06 W 4637 from Chennai to Tindivanam on National Highways. When the two wheeler came near Mamandur Laural Mall, a Long Wheel Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 18 Z 5454 belonged to the 1^st respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler from behind. Due to the accident, the victim sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent-owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim was resisted by the 2^nd respondent/Insurer on the ground that the victim also contributed to the accident. The age, income and avocation of the deceased were also stoutly denied by the 2^nd respondent.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st appellant/1^st claimant was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the claimants, 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and hence, the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 and 2 were liable to pay compensation. The amount payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.27,71,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Hence, facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this judgment.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the notional income of Rs.12,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is meagre one and it requires enhancement.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have failed to lead any evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing Rs.12,000/- as notional income of the deceased.

9. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was employed in a Canteen and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, in order to prove the income and avocation of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. Even if there is no proof for income and avocation of the deceased, this Court by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case can fix the notional income.

10. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 27.12.2020 and taking into consideration the date of accident and prevailing cost of living, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.16,500/- as notional income of the deceased. The claimants have produced Aadhaar Card of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.P12 and based on the same the age of the deceased was fixed at 30 years by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claima