JUDGMENT : (R. Sakthivel, J.) : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2019 dated 30.06.2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award dated June 30, 2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2019 on the file of 'Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District and Sessions Judge (FAC), Cuddalore' [henceforth 'Tribunal' for brevity]. 2. The appellants herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal. The petitioners filed Claim Petition against the respondents seeking compensation for the death caused by the first respondent's Driver to one Babu S/o. Pachayappan, who is the son of the first petitioner and brother of the second and third petitioners. Petitioners' case 3. The case of the petitioners is that on September 14, 2018 at about 03.00 hours, the first petitioner's son namely Babu was travelling as a loadman in the first respondent's Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing Registation No.TN-31-BA-2975 from west to east direction, along Cuddalore to Vridhachalam Main Road. While nearing Araskuzhi Eicher Lorry Stop, the driver of the first respondent’s lorry was speeding and driving in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, he collided the Eicher Goods Vehicle with the 3rd respondent's Multi Axle Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-28-BA-9751, which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the Eicher Goods Vehicle capsized, causing the deceased to sustain fatal injuries and die on the spot. Another loadman, Palanisamy also passed away. The deceased - Babu was the sole bread winner of his family and he spent his entire income for the welfare of the petitioners. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the owner and the insurer of the Eicher Goods vehicle respectively. The 3rd and 4th respondents are the owner and the insurer of the Multi Axle Goods vehicle respectively. Both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Petitioners filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lakhs only) for the death of Babu. 2nd Respondent's case 4. It is stated in the counter filed by the second respondent that the Eicher Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-31-BA-2975 involved in the accident was not insured with them. Petitioners filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lakhs only) for the death of Babu. 2nd Respondent's case 4. It is stated in the counter filed by the second respondent that the Eicher Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-31-BA-2975 involved in the accident was not insured with them. The driver of the said vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle at the relevant point of time. The accident, if at all, must have happened due to the negligent driving of the 3rd respondent's Multi Axle Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-28-BA-9751. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are not dependants of the deceased - Babu as they were already married, major and living apart. Since the said Babu travelled as an unauthorized passenger, and not as a loadman, the petitioners are required to prove that the driver of the 3rd respondent's Multi Axle Goods Vehicle had valid driving license to drive the Multi Axle Goods vehicle at the relevant point of time. The 2nd respondent claimed that they are not liable to pay any amount by way of compensation and accordingly, sought to dismiss the petition. 4th Respondent's case 5. As per FIR, Charge Sheet and Investigation Report, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the 1st Respondent's vehicle (Eicher) bearing Registration Number TN-31-BA2975. Only 1st and 2nd respondents are responsible for paying compensation if any award is passed. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim against 4th respondent may be dismissed. The Petitioners are bound to prove the age, income and alleged employment of the deceased - Babu by way of documentary evidence. The petitioners are bound to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by way of legal heir certificate. There was no connection between the alleged injury caused to the deceased in the alleged accident and his death. The Petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. Though notice was served on the first and third respondents, they did not choose to contest the petition and they remained absent and hence, they were set ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. The Petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. Though notice was served on the first and third respondents, they did not choose to contest the petition and they remained absent and hence, they were set ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Sarathkumar, who was the eye-witness to the occurrence, was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Rajendiran, Assistant in RTO Office, Neyveli was examined as R.W.1 and one Kishore, Manager of the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.2 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.3 were marked. 8. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the Driver of the Eicher Goods Vehicle and therefore, the first respondent being the owner of the Eicher is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Since the first respondent's Eicher was insured with the second respondent, the first and second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,91,400/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred Only). 9. Feeling aggrieved with the Award, the petitioners have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Arguments 10. This Court has heard the submissions made on either side. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has submitted that the deceased - Babu was working as a Loadman and earned a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month; that the petitioners produced Ex-P.12 (Salary Certificate) to prove the same; that the Tribunal rejected Ex-P.12 (Salary Certificate) by assigning reason that the person who issued Ex-P.12 (Salary Certificate) was not examined; that even assuming that Ex-P.12 was not proved, the Tribunal ought to have taken at least a sum of Rs.14,000/- as notional income of the deceased; that the Tribunal failed to award compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection' to the second and third petitioners, who are sisters of the deceased - Babu. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and thereby, enhance the compensation awarded. 12. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and thereby, enhance the compensation awarded. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that though the petitioners have claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was working as a daily wager and was earning a sum of Rs.600/- per day, they have not produced any proof to substantiate the same; that the Tribunal was right in fixing notional income at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month and hence, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Point for consideration 13. The point that arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows: (i) Whether the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is correct? Discussion and Decision 14. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 15. On September 14, 2018 at about 03.00 hours, when the deceased was travelling as a Loadman in the first respondent’s Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-31-BA-2975 from west to east in Cuddalore to Vridhachalam Main Road, the driver of the first respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-31-BA-2975 drove the Eicher in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the third respondent's Multi Axle Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-28-BA-9751 which came in the opposite direction. An FIR was registered against the driver of the first respondent's Eicher. On the side of the petitioners, one Thiru. Sarathkumar was examined as P.W.2, as an eye-witness. Based on the Ex-P.1 (FIR) and the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the first respondent's Eicher is responsible for the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs.18,91,400/-. 16. According to the petitioners, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. Though the petitioners produced Ex-P.12 (Salary Certificate), the person who issued Ex-P.12 (Salary Certificate) was not examined. In short, Ex-P.12 is not proved as per law. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that the deceased was working as a Loadman along with him under Kalai Broilers, Kurinchipadi. In the year 2018, a loadman could have easily earned a sum of Rs.600 per day. In short, Ex-P.12 is not proved as per law. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that the deceased was working as a Loadman along with him under Kalai Broilers, Kurinchipadi. In the year 2018, a loadman could have easily earned a sum of Rs.600 per day. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased would have worked at least 22 days per month and would have earned not less than Rs.13,000/- per month. 17. Further, since the petitioners have stated that the second and third petitioners are sisters and dependants of the deceased, the Tribunal is not correct in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of love and affection to the second and third petitioners. The Tribunal has apportioned the compensation amount among the three petitioners and thus, had treated the 2nd and 3rd petitioner as dependents. However, it has miserably failed to award compensation to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection to which they are entitled as dependents. Considering the age of the deceased - Babu and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners as well as the fact that the deceased - Babu is a bachelor, this Court is of the considered view that the second and third petitioners are dependants and thus, they entitled to get compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of loss of love and affection as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ]. Parental Consortium of Rs.44,000/- awarded to the mother, loss of estate of Rs.16,500/-, funeral expenses of Rs. 16,500/- are all well in tune with Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation from the second respondent as tabulated hereunder: S.No. Head Amount 1 Loss of income FP = Rs.13,000/- (NI) X 40% = Rs.5,200/- Rs.13,000/- (NI) + Rs.5,200/- (FP) = Rs.18,200/- (MI) Rs.18,200/- (MI) X 1/2 (PD) X 12 (m) X 18 (M) Rs.19,65,600.00 2 Loss of parental consortium (1 st petitioner) Rs.44,000.00 3 Loss of love and affection (2 nd and 3rd petitioners) Rs.88,000.00 3 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500.00 4 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500.00 Total Rs.21,30,600.00 Note: 1) NI = Notional Income 2) FP = Future Prospects 3) M = Multiplier 4) m= months 5) PD = Personal deduction 6) MI = Monthly Income 18. Point that arise for consideration is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the second respondent. 19. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,30,600.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only). The second respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount of Rs.21,30,600.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only), less the amount if any already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (FAC), Cuddalore, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.