Compensation for death in motor accident must reflect the victim's loss and be consistent with applicable notional income standards, ensuring it is just and reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021 in MCOP.No.6431 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Full Additional Incharge of II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

2. The facts leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:-

(i) On 27.09.2015 at 15.45 hours, when the deceased by name G.Nithish was riding Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN 85 C 7403 along the Anna Salai in front of Campa Cola compound from North to South direction, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 85 C 8889, which was driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler and simultaneously, a TNSTC bus bearing Regn.No.TN 21 N 1487 came from the same direction, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and the back wheel of the bus ran over the head of the deceased.

(ii) Claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Nithish, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.6431 of 2016 before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (II Small Causes) at Chennai seeking compensation of Rs.41 lakhs.

(ii) According to the claimants, the drivers of the lorry and the TNSTC Bus are responsible for the accident. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the lorry and 3^rd respondent/TNSTC Bus are jointly, vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

3. Before the claims tribunal, on the side of the claimants, witnesses PW1 and PW2 were examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 was examined as witness and Ex.R1 was marked. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,97,000/- and directed the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company and 3^rd respondent/TNSTC to pay the compensation at the ratio of 50:50 to the claimants at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

4. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under various conventional heads are as follows:

Out of the award amount, the 2^nd respondent is liable to pay 50% of the compensation which comes to Rs.3,99,250/- each to 1^st and 2^nd claimants and the 3^rd respondent is liable to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation which comes to Rs.3,99,250/- each to 1^st and 2^nd claimants.

5. Aggrieved against the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal on lower side, the claimants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the present case, there is no need for discussion with regard to negligence aspect. The tribunal has fixed the liability of negligence on the drivers of both the vehicles at 50:50 and directed to pay the insurer of the lorry and TNSTC, the award amount at the ratio of 50:50, which need not be interfered with. He further submitted that the accident was occurred in the year 2016 and the deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident, however, the tribunal erroneously fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- which is very meagre. As per Sarla Verma's case, the applicable notional income for the year 2016 is Rs.14,000/-. It is his further submission that the tribunal has awarded meagre amount on the head loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and transportation. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal and for allowing the appeal.

7. The learned counsels appearing for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance company as well as the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation submitted that the trial court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly fixed Rs.10,000 as notional in