Compensation for loss of dependency must reflect the deceased's earning potential, and conventional heads must be mandatorily granted in determining total compensation.

JUDGME NT

This Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

2. Shortly stated, on 18.08.2022 at about 1.15 p.m., when the deceased Ravi @ Ravikumar was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-30-AZ-6446 from Kaveripuram to Kolathur in Kovindapadi Kolathur road, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-93-D-2929, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit against the two wheeler of the said Ravi, due to which, the deceased was thrown out. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Mettur, where he died. The legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased Ravi.

3. The 2^nd respondent resisted the claim petition stating that they are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants since the offending vehicle was driven by a minor without driving license. Hence, prayed to dismiss the said Claim Petition.

4. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the 1^st respondent vehicle and that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation. A compensation of Rs.14,05,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal and the 2^nd respondent was directed to pay the said compensation to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, at the first instance and then recover the same from the 1^st respondent, since he allowed his vehicle to be ridden by a minor without driving license.

5. Mr. S.P. Yuaraj, the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits submits that the deceased was a lorry owner earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is very meagre. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amounts under all the heads. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a just compensation, which requires any interference by this Court.

7. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

8. The findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question, and the deceased having sustained fatal injuries which ultimately resulted in his death are not in dispute. The aforesaid findings of the Tribunal appear to be quite correct. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere with the above findings of the learned Tribunal. Hence, the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are affirmed.

9. Now, the question arises as to whether fixing of notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and the compensation awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal is appropriate and reasonable.

10. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that since no proof has been adduced by the claimants for the income of the deceased, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. However, considering the year of accident and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems it fit to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-. Since there are 4 dependants, 1/4 is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and applying the pri