The court emphasized that income tax returns cannot be rejected solely due to being filed posthumously; the average income must be considered for fair compensation calculation.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated February 14, 2025 passed by 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Special Court, Small Causes Court) Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.375 of 2018, the petitioners therein have preferred C.M.A. No.1928 of 2025 praying to enhance the compensation, while the second respondent therein / insurance company, has preferred C.M.A. No.3449 of 2025 praying to set aside the Award.

2. This Common Judgment will now decide both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, as they both arise out of one and the same Award.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Claim Petition.

PETITIONERS’ CASE

4. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased - Rangan; second and third petitioners are their sons. Fourth petitioner (since died) is the mother of the deceased; she passed away during the pendency of the Claim Petition.

4.1. On August 30, 2017 at about 17:30 hours, the deceased - Rangan was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-AE-1805 in north to south direction on Rajiv Gandhi Salai. When he was proceeding opposite to Hotel Formula-1, Karapakkam, Chennai, first respondent's Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.KA-51- Z-8054, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling.

4.2. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Swaram Hospital, Chennai wherein first aid was administered and later, he was admitted as in-patient at Chettinad Hospital, Padur, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram District. Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries on September 23, 2017.

4.3. In connection with the said accident, First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.570 of 2017 was registered on the file of the J-3, Guindy Traffic Investigation, Chennai, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and later, altered into Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of the , against the driver of the first respondent's Tata Sumo Car.

4.4. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 56 years and he was the Proprietor of M/s.SKR Industries, Thalambur, and was earning a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- per annum.

4.5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the first respondent’s Tata Sumo Car. The respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and the insurer of the offending Tata Sumo Car respectively, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. First respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

6. The second respondent filed a counter statement denying the petition averments. The manner of accident is specifically disputed. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent's Car. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the aforesaid two-wheeler in which the deceased was riding pillion. Stating so, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

7. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the son of the deceased - Mr.R.Anand Babu (second petitioner herein) was examined as P.W.1, and one Mr.Natarajan was examined as an ocular witness to the accident as P.W.2, and Mr.Premnath, Medical Record Officer of Chettinad Hospit