JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to modify the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur dated 21.07.2016.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2013 dated 21.07.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur.

2. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The appellants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2013, claiming compensation for the death of Kishore Kumar, in an accident that took place on 04.09.2012. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,34,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Thirty Four Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2013 is as follows:

On 04.09.2012, the deceased Kishore kumar was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-47-AA-1217 and another deceased Sathiyamoorthy was travelling as the pillion rider. At about 04.00 p.m., a Ford car bearing registration No.TN-45-AP-7621 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler from the backside and both the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Kishore kumar. The deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and he was supplying generator for hire and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows:

The rider of the two wheeler drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to overtake a lorry and he has invited the accident. The deceased was responsible for the accident. The driver of the Ford car was not having valid driving licence. The deceased was not in possession of a valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle. The validity of driving licence of the deceased expired on 27.09.2011. The age, status, occupation of the deceased is denied. The claim is excessive.

5. On the side of the claimant, five witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,34,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Thirty Four Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was only 30 years old. His wife, minor son, mother of the deceased were the dependants. The Tribunal failed to consider the income tax returns and failed to award future prospects and the award granted by the Tribunal under various other heads is very low. It is wrong on the part of the Tribunal to fix the income, as if the deceased was a coolie, whereas the deceased was a businessman filing income tax returns from the year 2010 till 2014. The Income Tax Inspector was examined as P.W.5. The income tax returns reveals that the income of the deceased during the year 2012 – 2013 is Rs.1,54,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only). The income should be raised 50 % towards future prospects. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation for loss of estate and prayed the amount to be enhanced.

7. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that there was no document to show that the deceased was having a business. Mere marking of the bills for purchase of the generator cannot be taken as proof of business. No copy of R.C. was marked. No rental agreement was marked. There is no substantial document to support the IT return. The IT returns are filed for loan purpose. They are not sufficient to prove the income. The age o