IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In the matter of assessment of compensation, hypothetical considerations would be involved, but such assessments should be objective – Monthly income could be fixed taking into account tax returns only if details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable Tribunal/Court to calculate income in accordance with law.
(2) Fatal accident – In case of self-employed persons also, fixation of monthly income, taking factor of future prospects cannot be denied.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In these quintuplet appeals, two from the Insurer and three from the Claimant who is the legal heir of the deceased persons, the insurer claims for reduction of quantum of compensation and the claimant seeks enhancement of quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal, raising various grounds. In this judgment, the claimant is referred to as ‘the appellant’ and the insurance company which preferred two appeals is referred to as ‘the respondent’ for convenience.

3. The unfortunate incident in which the appellant lost her parents and the younger brother occurred on 20.06.2007. The offending vehicle bearing No. TN-21-X-3879/Tata van insured with the respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the stationary auto bearing No. TN-07-Y-0657 in which the deceased persons were travelling. Seeking compensation for the death of the father, mother and the brother, the appellant filed MCOP No. 5238/2011, MCOP No. 5239/2011 and MCOP No. 5252/2011, respectively. On appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal found the driver of the Tata van to be negligent and ultimately saddled the respondent with the liability to indemnify the owner of the said offending vehicle. Hence, in view of the concurrent findings in that regard, we proceed to consider only on the question whether enhancement of compensation is to be made at the instance of the appellant or reduction of compensation is to be done at the instance of the respondent-insurer.

4. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 14,78,000/- as compensation for the death of the father of the appellant. For the death of her mother and brother, the Tribunal granted Rs. 13,33,936/- and Rs. 2,45,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation thus awarded, the appellant preferred appeals. After taking into account the rival contentions, the High Court enhanced the compensation for the death of the father of the appellant from Rs. 14,78,000/- to Rs. 30,58,000/- and for the death of her mother, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 13,33,936/- to Rs. 16,34,000/-. For the death of brother, the appellant was granted an amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- in addition, and in other words, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,45,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. As noted earlier, the appellant claims enhancement of compensation in all the three cases and at the same time, the respondent seeks deduction of quantum of compensation granted in the case of the parents of the claimant. In other words, the respondent has chosen not to prefer any appeal against the enhanced compensation granted for the death of the brother of the appellant.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. We will, firstly, consider the appeals preferred by the respondent-insurer seeking reduction of the enhanced quantum of compensation granted in the case of the parents of the appellant. Needless to say, that only if the said question of such deduction is answered in negative, the appeals by the claimant invite consideration. A perusal of the appeals by the respondent would reveal that the very same three questions of law have been raised while contending for reduction of the enhanced compensation, as hereunder:

“(A) Whether the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has erred or not deducting the 1/3 of the income of the deceased regarding personal expenditures where the deceased has a minor daughter and old aged parents as the dependents?

(B) Whether the Hon'ble High Court has error in considering the income of the deceased, where there is no proof of income considered by the Hon'ble High Court and considered the income on assumption basis?

(C) Whether the Hon'ble High Court has error in awarding Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and also Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent no. 2 & 3 towards the loss lo