BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 05.09.2023 PRONOUNCED ON:24.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR C.M.A(MD)No.940 of 2018

1.Leela

2.Sudalamani

3.Valli

4.Uchimahali Gomathy(died) : Appellants/Petitioners Vs.

1.Balasubramanian

2.Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, 25, B2/1S, SRC Complex, North Block, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli.

3.Durairaj (R.3 given up vide Court order dated 16.08.2023)

4.Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, No.335/1-A, V.V.Complex, North Bye-pass road, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli. : Respondents /Respondents PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1189 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 08.04.2013.

For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakumaran For Respondents :Mr.D.Sivaraman for R.2 :Mr.V.Sakthivel for R.4 : No Appearance for R.1 : R.3- given up JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1189 of 2012, dated 08.04.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellants/claimants who were awarded with compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., payable by the second respondent/Insurer consequent to an accident occurred on 05.08.2013, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal and claimed enhancement of the same.

3. Admittedly the first appellant/first claimant is the wife, the second appellant/second claimant is the son and the claimants 3 to 5 are the daughters of the decesed Krishnan. Pending appeal, the fifth claimant Gomathi had died. The case of the claimants is that the deceased Krishnan was a driver by profession and was working as a driver in Sri Ganapathy Motors, Tirunelveli and that he was earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and batta.

4. During trial, the claimants have examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and exhibited 7 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7. The respondents 1 and 2 had remained exparte. On the side of the fourth respondent, their Executive Officer was examined as R.W.1 and their investigation report was exhibited as Ex.R.1. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2013 by holding that the first respondent's driver was responsible for the accident, mulcted the liability on the second respondnet and thereby directed the second respondnet / Insurer to pay the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- with interest and costs and dismissed the claim petition as against the respondents 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, as he was possessing heavy vehicle licence at that time, that the Tribunal ought to have calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.12,15,000/-, that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- for the first claimant for loss of companion and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of guidance and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that therefore, the claimants were constrained to prefer the present appeal seeking enhancement.

6. The claimants have produced the driving licence of the deceased Krishnan as Ex.P.7, wherein it is evident that he was authorised to drive transport vehicle with Badge Number. But as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the claimants have not produced any iota of evidence to prove the income of the deceased.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble S