The Court modified the compensation for a fatal accident, emphasizing the importance of accurate income assessment and age determination based on reliable documents.

JUDGMENT :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2013 made in I.A.No.358 of 2011 in MCOP.No.900 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ariyalur, the claimants have come up with this appeal.

2. Mrs.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since the 1^st respondent remained exparte before the trial court, notice to the 1^st respondent is dispensed with.

4. It is the case of the claimants that, on 23.12.2004 at about 7.00 am., when the deceased Suresh was proceeding in his TVS 50 vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-46-B-0762 on the Jayankondam to Virudhachalam main road along with one Alagappan, at that time, the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-46-C-3341 owned by the 1^st respondent, insured with the 2^nd respondent driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the above said TVS 50 vehicle, due to which the deceased Suresh sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased Suresh filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.900 of 2005 claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.7 and on the side of respondents, no documents were marked and no witnesses were examined. 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 vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.3,94,500/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Suresh. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd respondent/insurance company filed a Review petition in I.A.No.358 of 2011 and the tribunal had reduced the compensation awarded to Rs.2,02,000/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation arrived at 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 vehicle, against whom a case was registered in Crime No.810 of 2004 and at the time of accident, the deceased Suresh was aged about 18 years and was doing Mechanic works and was also involved in Medicinal oil trees business and was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month and the deceased was the only bread winner of their family and the entire family was depending on his income. However, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/-, 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 increased to Rs.10,000/- and 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, she 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 2004 and it is the claim of the appellants/claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was