In claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the calculation of compensation should include the deceased's actual earnings and reasonable projections of future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

R. Hemalatha, J.

The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.3569/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , Rule 3 of hte M.A.C.T. Rules seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one M.Sundari (wife of the first claimant and mother of the claimants 2 and 3) in a road accident that occurred on 06.08.2016.

2. The brief case of the appellants / claimants is as follows :

On 06.08.2016, M.Sundari (deceased) was riding her two-wheeler bearing Registration number TN-09-BE-7254 on Thoraipakkam - Adayar road. When she was nearing Seevaram, a speeding lorry bearing Registration number TN-23-Q-6052, hit the two wheeler, resulting in the instantaneous death of M.Sundari.

3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration number TN-23-Q-6052 was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.

4. In the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained absent and was set exparte. The second respondent resisted the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

5. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration number TN-23-Q-6052. Since the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving license on the date of accident, the Tribunal directed the second respondent, Insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.14,29,400/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the lorry (Pay and Recover) vide, its orders dated 21.12.2020.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants / claimants have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

7. Heard Mr.R.Kalai Arasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs.A.Salomi, learned counsel for the second respondent.

8. Mr.R.Kalai Arasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that M.Sundari (deceased), aged 32 years was working as a cashier in a hotel, earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal had fixed a meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- as her notional monthly income. He, therefore prayed for enhancing the compensation.

9. Per contra Mrs.A.Salomi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is based on the well laid principles of law which were in vogue at the time of passing of the order and therefore, the same need not be disturbed at this stage.

10. According to the claimants, M.Sundari (deceased) aged 32 years, was working as a cashier in a hotel, earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. In the absence of satisfactory income proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-. It is pertinent to point out that the accident took place in the year 2016 and in the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that fixing notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- 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. Since there are three dependents,