VINCENT Vs. VENNILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parents of the deceased namely Iaisak Daisan aged 20 years are the appellants in this appeal. They have filed this appeal against the impugned Judgment and decree dated 01.06.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge (MCOP), Thiruvannamalai.

(2.) In this appeal, they are seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has considered a very low notional income of Rs.6,000/- and has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,97,000/- as compensation.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the deceased was working as a Mason and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering Rs.6,000/- as notional income for awarding the aforesaid compensation. The learned Counsel further submits that even as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 2 SCC 735, the notional income of a vegetable vendor was taken as Rs.6,500/- in the year 2008. The learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be appropriately enhanced by considering the monthly income as Rs.15,000/-. The learned Counsel fairly submits that the tribunal has committed a mistake in adding 50% towards future prospect. However, it is submitted that at the same time, the Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards loss of amenities.