The court affirmed the necessity to reassess compensation in road accident claims, emphasizing correct calculation of notional income and liabilities based on valid evidence and contributory negligence principles.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimants have come before this court by way of this appeal.

2. It is the case of the claimants that son of the first claimant and brother of the claimants 2 and 3 died in a road accident that had taken place on 28-06-2017. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased Nataraj was riding his Hero Passion Pro motorcycle from North to South direction by observing the traffic rules. When he came near KP.Karadu Privu, one Ashok Leyland Mini lorry belonged to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler from backside. Therefore, the deceased fell down and the front right wheel of the mini lorry ran over the head of the deceased. Therefore, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.24,00,000/-

3. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the second respondent/ insurance company filed a counter and contested the claim on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the fault on the part of the deceased.

4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini-lorry, insured with the second respondent. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.9,83,920/- after deducting 15% towards contributory negligence for failure to wear the helmet. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come before this court by way of this appeal.

5. Both the learned counsel for the Appellants as well as the Second Respondent/ Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence as well as liability. Hence, the facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the accident had occurred in the year 2017 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.8000/- is very much on the lower side. Hence, it requires enhancement.

7. The learned counsel for the Second Respondent/ Insurance Company submitted that as per the salary certificate produced by the claimants, the net salary of the deceased could be fixed only at Rs. 8000/- Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fixing Rs.8000/- as notional income.

8. In the claim petition, it was averred by the claimants that the deceased was working as Body Shop Technician in Ford Motors Car Company, Salem. In order to prove the income, the claimants produced Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P20, salary certificates issued by the Susee Premium Automobiles Private Limited, Madurai. However, the salary certificates were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the salary certificates were prepared in the company letter pad, therefore, it should not be relied on. After rejecting the salary certificates, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the notional income at Rs. 8000/- per month.

9. A perusal of the Exhibit P8 would indicate that it is a computer generated salary slip issued by M/s.Susee Premium Automobiles Private Limited, Madurai. Exhibit P20 is the salary certificate issued by the very same company later in the letter pad. In Ex.P8, the salary of the deceased was mentioned at Rs.10,364/-. In Ex.P20, the salary certificate prepared in letter pad, the salary of the deceased was mentioned at Rs.10,392/- for the month of June 2017.

10. In Exhibit P8, the claimant produced the salary slip for the month of May 2017, which indicates that the salary was Rs.10,337/-. The sala