Legal representatives can maintain compensation claims for deceased relatives regardless of their dependency, but the extent of dependency influences the quantum of compensation assessed.

JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3474 of 2021, dated 18.04.2024.

2. C.M.A.No.793 of 2025 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and C.M.A.No.1174 of 2025 is filed by the Insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the quantum of compensation and also maintainability of claim petition by the claimants, who according to the Insurance Company were not dependents of the deceased.

3. It is not in dispute that the wife of the 1^st claimant and mother of the claimants 2 to 4 namely J.Prema died in a road accident that had occurred on 25.06.2021. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-12- AF-8014 proceeding from East to West near Sadayappa Kalyana Mandabam, Nazarathpet. At that point of time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-57-BE-9783 belonged to the 1^st respondent in C.M.A.No.793 of 2025 and insured with the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased was thrown out and sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Later, she succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

4. The 1^st respondent-owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the Insurer of the lorry. It was the case of the 2^nd respondent/Insurer of the lorry before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. The Insurer of the lorry has also disputed the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that the claimants were not dependents of the deceased person.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st claimant was examined as PW.1 and on behalf of the claimants, 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. 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 lorry. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.20,42,625/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in C.M.A.No.793 of 2025. The Insurer of the lorry filed separate appeal questioning the very maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that the claimants were not dependents of the deceased in C.M.A.No.1174 of 2025.

7. Since both the civil miscellaneous appeals are arising out of same accident, they are taken up together for hearing.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the notional income of Rs.12,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side and the same requires enhancement.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurer of the lorry would submit that the claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing Rs.12,500/- as notional income. He further submits that the claimants, who are husband and major sons of the deceased person were not