Courts must scrutinize posthumous income claims for accuracy to ensure fair compensation reflective of loss and dependency, aligning with statutory principles of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated December 5, 2022 passed by 'the Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tambaram' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.249 of 2009, the second respondent therein namely – The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kancheepuram, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

PETITIONERS' CASE

3. The deceased - Janarthanan passed away in an accident that occurred on December 3, 2006 at about 04:00 Hours. The petitioners 1 to 3 are his wife, son and mother respectively.

3.1. On the fateful day, the deceased – Janarthanan was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-T-27 from Madras Export Processing Zone [MEPZ] to Tambaram. When he reached near 'MEPZ Gate', a van bearing Registration No.TN-09-Q-1135 which was proceeding from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit against the Motor Cycle causing an accident

3.2. Due to the aforesaid accident, deceased - Janarthanan sustained multiple injuries and was admitted in Parvathi Ortho Hospital, Chennai - 44 for treatment. Thereafter, he passed away on December 8, 2006 while undergoing treatment.

3.3. At the time of accident, the deceased - Janarthanan was 34 years old. He was the proprietor of Sree Ragavendra Travels and was also engaged in milk business. He was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.

3.4. With regard to the accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.3209 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 was registered on the file of Tambaram Police Station, against the Driver of the aforesaid van.

3.5. First respondent is the owner of the said offending van and the second respondent is the insurer of the said van. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners.

3.6. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the present Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

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

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE:

5. The second respondent filed a counter statement denying the claim petition averments. It was contended that the Driver of the said van drove the van with due care and caution observing all traffic rules and regulations and he was neither rash nor negligent at the time of accident. There was no fault on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s van. The deceased - Janarthanan himself was the tort-feasor. Further, the deceased did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. On the above grounds, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner – J.Shakila @ Thatchayani, who is the wife of the deceased - Janarthanan was examined as P.W.1 and one B.Anandh Kumar, who is an ocular witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.

7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and the document