An appeal for enhanced compensation was dismissed as the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence for income, affirming Tribunal's compensation based on notional income principles.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1857 of 2019, dated 05.06.2024, the claimants have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal.

2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that husband of the 1^st claimant, father of the 2^nd claimant and son of the claimants 3 and 4 namely Lunjapao Singson died in a road accident that had occurred on 03.12.2018. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-DH-6508 by properly wearing helmet proceeding from east to west. When he came near Children's Park, Sardarpatel Road, Guindy, Chennai, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-22-DL-8653 owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a consequence, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim petition had been filed by the dependents of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested only by the insurer of the lorry by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petition. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were also denied by the 2^nd respondent.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 3^rd appellant/3^rd claimant was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the claimants, 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.36,02,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come by way of this appeal.

6. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent/Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Hence, facts necessary to decide those questions are not discussed in this judgment.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side and hence, it requires enhancement.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal should have fixed minimum wages payable to the unskilled workers as the income and hence, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on higher side. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jitendra vs. Sadiya and others reported in 2025 INSC 166

9. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was working as a Fund-Raiser and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. However, the 3^rd claimant-mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1, who deposed about avocation and income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim petition. The claimants in the claim petition specifically pleaded that the deceased was a Fund-Raiser and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The said plea was supported b