The main legal point established in the judgment is the use of income tax returns as evidence of actual income for calculating compensation in motor accident cases, and the clarification of compensation under conventional heads, including consortium, as per relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in C.M.A.No.576 of 2022: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 4th October, 2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court at Namakkal.

Prayer in Cross Objection No.79 of 2022: Cross Objection filed under Order XLI R 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decree and judgment in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2017 dated 04.10.2021 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal and to enhance the compensation amount claimed by the cross objectors / respondents 1 to 6 herein with interest and cost by allowing this Cross Appeal.)

Common Judgment

D. Bharatha Chakravarhy, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal dated 04.10.2021 in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2017, in and by which, the claim made by the respondents / claimants for compensation towards the death of one Nandakumar in the motor accident, dated 08.08.2016 was allowed by awarding a total sum of Rs.54,52,917/- with further interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the findings of both the negligence as well as the quantum, the Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants have filed the above Cross Objection praying to enhance the compensation. Hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

2. The case of the claimants is that the first claimant, Manju, is the wife of the deceased. The fourth and fifth claimants are the parents of the deceased and the claimant Nos.2, 3 and 6 are the minor children of the deceased and the first claimant. The deceased was in the business of selling electricals in the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Electricals and was earning a sum of Rs.55,000/- per month. In the year 2016, he was aged about 39 years. While so, on 08.08.2016, when the deceased was riding two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 28 BA 7686 in Namakkal to Salem National Highway near Chellapambatti Saiway bridge from South to North, the lorry which was driven in a rash and negligent manner bearing registration No.TN 30 L 2163, suddenly stopped and turned in the wrong direction resulting in an accident, by which, the two wheeler collided on the rear side of the lorry resulting in serious injuries to the aforesaid Nandakumar and the pillion rider, in which, the said Nandakumar died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.266 of 2016 was registered against the driver of the lorry by the Inspector of Police, Nallipalayam Police Station. Hence, the claim was made against the first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent, being the insurer for a total sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted by the second respondent, Insurance Company by contending that it was the deceased who was riding two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner without wearing helmet resulting in the accident. The compensation claimed by them is also exorbitant and excessive. Thereafter, the first claimant i.e., the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Pannerselvam, the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, one Rajkumar, the driver of the lorry was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to analyse the case of the parties and found that the accident happened only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. However, since the deceased was riding two wheeler without wearing helmet, the Tribunal attributed 10% contributory negligence to the accident and accor