IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the principle that reliable income evidence is crucial in determining compensation for loss of dependency in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2018, dated 26.10.2022, on the file of Subordinate Judge, MACT - Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.

The Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2018, dated 26.10.2022, has filed the present appeal before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal.

2. The claimants who were the wife, son and mother of the deceased Sundaram @ Mohanasundaram filed the claim petition on the ground that on 27.05.2018, the deceased was riding a vehicle and his son who is a 2nd claimant was a pillion rider and they were travelling at Kangeyam to Sennimalai Road at about 6.15 a.m., and they had parked the vehicle near SPS Engineering Lethe Works and were involved in a discussion. At that point of time, the offending vehicle which was a Jeep and which was coming in the same direction dashed on the deceased Sundaram @ Mohanasundaram and he died on the spot. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.270 of 2018, against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation.

3. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle viz; the Jeep. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.17,90,000/-under various heads as follows:

4. The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

5. The insurance company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. Heard Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.MA.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for R1 & R2.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. This Court has also gone through the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. The main thrust of the argument on the side of the appellant is with regard to the compensation that was fixed under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. The learned counsel for the appellant questioned the fixation of compensation both on the ground of fixation of the monthly income of the deceased as well as on the ground that the claimants have not lost any income after the demise of the deceased since the son was continuing with the business and was earning income and was taking care of the family.

9. The Tribunal had taken into consideration Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 while coming to the conclusion that the deceased was owning certain lands. The Tribunal also considered Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 and came to a conclusion that the deceased Sundaram @ Mohanasundaram was running the business of Blue Metals and was having a crusher unit. That apart, he was also running an Oil Mill in the name and style of Sivanmalai Andavar Industries.

10. The Tribunal took into consideration Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 which are the income tax returns filed in the name of the deceased for the assessment years 2014-2018. The Tribunal specifically considered Ex.P.16 which was the income tax return for the assessment year 2017-2018. The Tribunal found