IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2020 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

1.Chitra

2.Minor Ajith

3.Minor Muthuvel

4.Pandamma (minor appellants 2 and 3 rep. by next friend & mother, 1^st appellant) .. Appellants Vs.

1.S. Devi

2.M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Head Office, “Dare House”, 2nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 31.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No. 188 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.

For Appellants : Mr. P. Mani For Respondents : No appearance (For R1)

Mr. E. Rajadurai for M/s. M.B. Gopalan (For R2)

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation granted by the award dated 31.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No. 188 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur.

2.The appellants-claimants filed M.C.O.P. No. 188 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Perambalur, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Jayaraman, who died in the accident that took place on

08.04.2009.

3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper Lorry belonging to the 1^st respondent and directed the 2^nd respondent as insurer of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.3,46,000/- as compensation to the appellants.

4.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 31.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No. 188 of 2010, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was working as a Stone Breaker and was earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day. The Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at only Rs.75/- per day and Rs.2,250/- per month, which is meagre, merely because the appellants did not examine the Quarry owner. The appellants examined P.W.2, co-worker of the deceased who has deposed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.350/- per day by working in the Quarry. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased atleast at Rs.200/- per day, considering the nature of work of the deceased and the date of accident and granted more compensation towards loss of income. The Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation for loss of consortium to the 1^st appellant and ought to have awarded Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants 2 to 4, who are the children and mother of the deceased, towards loss of love and affection, instead of awarding Rs.20,000/- in total. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-

Insurance Company contended that in the absence of any evidence let in by the appellants to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal erroneously fixed a sum of Rs.2,250/- per month as the notional income of the deceased, which is not meagre. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not meagre. The appellants have not made out any case for enhancement of the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.Though notice has been served on the 1^st respondent and her name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for her either in person or through counsel.

8.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the

2^nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

9.It is the contention of the appellants that the deceased was working as a Stone Breaker in Quarry and was earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- month. The appellants have examined P.W.2, Co- worker of the deceased to prove the avocation and incom