The court determined appropriate notional income based on current living costs, enhancing compensation for loss of dependency and awarding additional conventional damages, resulting in an increased total award.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimants have come before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. According to the appellants/claimants, the husband of the first claimant, the father of the claimants 2 to 4 namely Raja died in a road accident that had taken place on 21.09.2022. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased Raja was riding his two- wheeler on the extreme left side of the Salem-Omalur main road. The lorry belonged to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the two-wheeler from behind. As a result of the accident, the above said Raja sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition was filed by his dependents seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, owner of the lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the insurer of the lorry on the ground that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased.

4. 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 claimant was quantified at Rs.13,15,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum, the claimants preferred this appeal.

5. Both the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the second respondent have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence as well as liability. Hence, the facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the deceased was working as a driver and the Tribunal fixed the notional income only at Rs.10,000/- per month including the future prospects and hence, the same requires enhancement.

7. The learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the claimants have not produced any credible evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in fixing notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month.

8. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was working as Jeep driver in SVV Enterprises, Salem and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the employer of the deceased was examined as PW-2 and through him, Exhibit X3, salary certificate was marked.

9. A combined reading of the evidence of PW-2 and Exhibit X3 would indicate that the deceased was paid a salary of Rs.18,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- as batta per month. Therefore, according to the claimants, the income of the deceased was Rs.25,000/- per month. The Tribunal observed that the employer of the deceased failed to produce his account book, Attendant register, etc., to prove that the deceased was employed under him and he was paid Rs.25,000/- per month. It is also stated that the employer did not produce any document to show that proper deductions were made from the salary of the deceased towards PPF, ESI, etc. PW2 in his evidence admitted that he paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as income tax. Relying on the said admission, the Tribunal observed that the claim made by PW2 that he paid a salary of Rs.25,000/- to his employee is not believable. Had he paid Rs.25,000/-(Rs.3,00,000/- per annum) to his driver as salary, his income should have been much more and he should have paid much more income tax. Hence, his evidence cannot be fully believed.

10. I