In compensation cases, notional income and future prospects must be adequately considered, ensuring just compensation that reflects loss and dependency.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2020 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1584 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court, Special Sub Court No.1), at Chennai, the claimants have filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Though the notice was served on the first respondent, no one appeared on his behalf. Considering the period of pendency of the above appeal, the same is taken up for final disposal based on the materials available on record.

3. It is the case of the claimants that, on 12.10.2016 at about 13.20 hours, when the deceased namely Vinayagam, was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-09-CD-8577, at that time a Car belonging to the first respondent bearing Regn.No.TN-05-AT-4146 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner had hit the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereby, the appellants, who are the wife and parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.1584 of 2017 claiming a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.8 and the respondents have neither marked any exhibits nor examined any witnesses. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1^st respondent Car and awarded Rs.15,58,600/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1^st respondent Car and the accident is of the year 2016 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 34 years and was working as a Security and was earning not less than a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, which is very meagre and the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of decisions and thereby, the same has to be interfered with. Further, the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2016 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and was working as a Security, however, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company r