The court determined that notional income must reflect current economic conditions, leading to an increase in compensation after assessing future prospects of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.529 of 2019, dated 04.03.2020, the claimants have come before this Court seeking enhancement.

2. According to the appellants/claimants, the husband of the 1^st claimant, father of the claimants 2 to 4 and son of the 5^th claimant namely Manivel died in a road accident that had occurred on 21.10.2018. According to them, the deceased was proceeding in his Hero Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-24-H-5355 from Kaveripattinam Town to Dharmapuri NH Road slowly and steadily. At that point of time, the Eicher 1090 Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-29-AM-8852 belonged to the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and died. Therefore, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal and the Insurer of the offending vehicle alone contested the claim by filing counter. According to the 2^nd respondent- Insurer, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st appellant/1^st claimant was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness namely Sathishkumar was examined as PW.2 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and contents of FIR-Ex.P1, came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Eicher vehicle belonged to the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.15,37,416/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come before this Court.

6. 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. Therefore, 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 Tribunal fixed notional income only at Rs.9,000/- and the same is very meagre one and hence, 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 was justified in fixing notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month.

9. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that the deceased was engaged in Coconut Business and other seasonal business and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, in order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. Even if there is no proof of income, this Court by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case can fix the notional income. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred in the year 2018. Therefore, taking into consideration the date of accident and the prevailing cost of living, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.16,500/- as notional income for the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased based on Ex.P2-Post Mortem Certificate at 45 years. Therefore, the claimants