Compensation awarded for wrongful death should adequately reflect notional income while accounting for future prospects and personal expenses, with liability shared jointly by the vehicle owner and insurer.

JUDGMENT :

R. HEMALATHA, J.

The appellant, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited in C.M.A.No.2791/2024 is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.5/2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai and the appellants in C.M.A.No.2236/2023 are the claimants in the said petition.

2. The claimants filed the above said claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Ramya (daughter of claimants 1 and 2 and sister of claimant 3) in a road accident that occurred on 24.09.2018.

3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows :

On 24.09.2018, Ramya (since deceased) was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration Number TN-04-AP-1917 on Wall Tax Road near Elephant Gate Police Station and at about 21.50 hours, a speeding load van bearing Registration Number TN-20-CZ-0677 hit the two wheeler driven by Ramya (deceased) resulting in her instantaneous death.

4. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the load van bearing Registration Number TN-20-CZ-0677, was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, both the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.

5. In the Tribunal, the owner of the van remained absent and was set ex parte. The appellant, the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

6. The Tribunal, vide its orders dated 31.01.2023, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the load van bearing Registration Number TN-20-CZ-0677 and further held that the owner of the vehicle and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,69,000/- to the claimants 1 and 3, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as against the claimant 2.

7. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both the appeals are filed.

8. Heard Ms.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel for the claimants.

9. Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was working as a beautician earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.10,000/-, which, according to him, is very meagre. He therefore, prayed for enhancement of the notional monthly income of the deceased.

10. Per contra Ms.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3 towards her personal expenses. She therefore prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

11. In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was working as a beautician earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants have filed the Diploma Certificate in Bridal Makeup (Ex.P7) issued to Ramya (since deceased). In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. The accident took place in the year 2018 and the deceased was aged 28 years on the date of accident. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice. As per the decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, 40% is added towards future prospects of the deceased. The deceased died as a bac