Notional income of Rs.15,000/- reasonable for 2019 accident without proof; Tribunal's compensation upheld.

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J This appeal had been filed questioning the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal in and by order dated 05.06.2024 in M.C.O.P.No.6363 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The claimants are the mother and brother of the deceased Kishore Kumar. As per the claim petition, on 13.10.2019 at about 11.00 hours, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 19 AW 9781 form Madhuranthagam to Chengalpattu GST Road, near Vadapathi Bus Stop, Kancheepuram, a car bearing Registration No.TN02 AB 2581, travelling in the same direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner colluded with the motorcycle due to which the victim sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted at Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital for treatment, but he died on the same day.

3. The first respondent, who is the owner of the car, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The claim petition was resisted by the second respondent Insurance Company stating that the first respondent's vehicle was coming behind the victim's motorcycle and hence, the claim of rash and negligent driving is absolutely false. It is also the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. That apart, the claimants have not filed Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy of the deceased vehicle. It is contended that since no case has been filed against the driver of the first respondent vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also stated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW1 and Exs. R1 to R3 were marked.

5. On appreciation of materials and the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and directed the second respondent, being the insurer of the first respondent vehicle, to pay the compensation amount. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

6. The main grievance of learned counsel appearing for appellant Insurance Company is that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. Absolutely no documentary evidence was produced to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal needs appropriate reduction.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimants made his submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. On a perusal of records, this Court finds that on the side of claimants, Ex.R1 – ID Card of the deceased has been marked. Further, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that absolutely no document was produced to prove the income of the deceased. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2019, this Court is