J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The appellants filed claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.158 of 2020 on the file of the Special District Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Salem claiming a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Prakashraj who died in the accident that took place on 30.04.2019.

3. According to the appellants, on 30.04.2019 at about 16.30 hrs. while the deceased Prakashraj was riding his Hero Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN93 1170 on the left side of the Eadapadi – Jalakandapuram Main Road, Vellanaickenpalayam, near Amman Koil; that a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN52 A 3688 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the said Prakashraj and caused the accident; that in the accident, the said Prakashraj sustained grievous injuries on his vital organs, died on the spot and hence, the appellants filed claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents.

4. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is stated that the deceased alone drove the two wheeler in a rash & negligent manner and contributed to the accident; that the deceased did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident; hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked eighteen documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On the side of the second respondent, nine documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R9 but no witness was examined.

7. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.13,81,000/- as compensation to the appellants, at the first instance and recover the same from the 1st respondent, for violation of policy conditions.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants produced Ex.P5-salary slip to prove his income. The appellant has not examined the author of the said certificate and hence the Tribunal had not accepted the said salary slip. The appellants filed C.M.P.No.18444 of 2023 to receive the additional document mentioned which is the bank statement of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that the Bank statement would show that the deceased was earning an average of more than Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, even if the author of the salary slip has not been examined, the Tribunal ought to have fixed a higher notional income. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation towards loss of love & affection has to be enhanced as the appellants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the said head. The Tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate and prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

10. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and hence notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per contra submitted that the Tribunal is right in fixing the notional income since the appellants have not examined the author of the salary slip; that the Bank statements produced by the appellants also do not confirm that the deceased was drawing a standard / regular income; that there is variation in the monthly income of the deceased that has been deposited into the credit of the Bank Account of the deceased ; that the salary slip also shows the total amount deposited into the bank account including commission charges which depends upon