The appellate court enhanced compensation by applying established legal principles related to income and dependency, modifying the amount from Rs.19,82,000 to Rs.24,20,800.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.3387 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No.1, Small Causes Court, Chennai, the claimants have come up with this appeal.

2. Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

3. It is the case of the claimants that, on 03.02.2017 at about 2.10 p.m., when the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN- 22-CF-8883 along Tambaram to Puzhal bypass road opposite to S.S.V.Mini Mahal, Ambattur at the time, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-22-BH-3746 who was proceeding in front of the deceased motorcycle suddenly applied brake and turn on left side in order to go on left side without noticing the ongoing vehicle drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased motorcycle dashed with the 1^st respondent motorcycle and due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereby, the appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.3387 of 2017 claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P1 to P17 and on the side of respondents, they examined one witness viz. RW1 and marked exhibits R1 and R2.

5. After trial, though the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent, however, awarded a meagre amount of Rs.19,82,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

6. 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.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above said accident happened solely due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. The accident is of the year 2017 and at the time of accident, the deceased was only aged about 49 years and was working as a Personal Assistant and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, the tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/-, 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. 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.

8. 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.

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

10. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is concerned, the accident is of the year 2017 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 49 years and he was a Personal Assistant by profession and the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.10,500/-, which is on the lower side. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in