SARASAN AND OTHERS Vs. SENTHILKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was on 13.1.2007 the accident. A teenager by name Sasank died in the accident. He was then 18 years old. He who was riding a motorbike was knocked down by an autorikshaw. The autorikshaw was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

(2.) Heard Sri. Sheji P. Abraham and Sri. A. Ziyad Rahman, the learned counsel for the appellant and the 3rd respondent respectively.

(3.) The appellants are the parents and sister of the deceased. They contended that Sasank as a T.V. mechanic used to earn Rs. 3,500/- per month. The tribunal did not accept the said contention. It fixed a notional income of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The tribunal cannot be justified in fixing a notional income below Rs. 3,500/- per month. For, Rs 3,500/- per month was not beyond the reach of a T.V.mechanic in 2007. I find that the contention of the appellants that Sasank had a monthly income of Rs. 3,500/- can be accepted as such.