The court established that compensation claims must reflect actual income with deductions for personal expenses and future prospects while confirming liability based on rash driving.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated September 1, 2021 passed by 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court, Salem' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2016, the second respondent therein namely – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, has preferred C.M.A. No.1251 of 2022 seeking to set aside the same, while the petitioners therein have preferred C.M.A. No.1370 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. As these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of one and the same Award, they will be governed by this Common Judgment.

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

PETITIONERS' CASE

4. The deceased - Jayaraman passed away in an accident that occurred on February 27, 2016 at about 02.30 p.m. The petitioners 1 to 4 are his wife, two children and mother respectively.

4.1. On the fateful day, the deceased -Jayaraman was travelling on Salem – Chennai National Highway along with his friends in an Ford Eco- Sport Car bearing Registration No.TN-10-AT-3903. As the car tyre got punctured, they parked the car opposite Pavender Polytechnic at Manivizhunthan on the road's earthen shoulder and got an Auto Driver namely Mr.Manivannan to help them by changing the spare wheel. The Auto Driver had parked his Autorickshaw in front of the car. Both the car and the Autorickshaw were parked with indicators and parking lights turned on. Warning Triangle was also properly used. All the traffic rules and regulations were followed.

4.2. At that time, an Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-AT-6220, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly hit against the deceased - Jayaraman, Auto Driver - Manivannan and deceased Jayaraman's friend - Anandakumar and also hit against the right side of the Car and the Autorickshaw. In the accident, deceased - Jayaraman sustained grievous injuries and passed away on the way to the hospital, the Auto Driver passed away on the spot and the said Jayaraman's friend - Anandakumar sustained grievous injuries.

4.3. At the time of accident, the deceased - Jayaraman was 39 years old, engaged in the business of purchasing cotton fabrics and processing & reselling them, under the name of M/s.Vijayalakshmi Tex and thereby earned Rs.1,50,000/- per month.

4.4. First respondent is the owner of the said offending Eicher Lorry and the second respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher Lorry and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the present Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

5. The first respondent filed a counter statement contending that the driver of the Eicher lorry bearing Registration No. TN-37-AT-6220 was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, strictly adhering to traffic rules. The said Car and Auto Rickshaw were parked in the middle of the road without any warning signal, parking lights or indicators. In an attempt to avert the accident, the driver of the Eicher Lorry applied sudden brakes, however, despite his best efforts, the accident occurred solely due to the carelessness and negligence of the deceased - Jayaraman and the deceased Auto Driver - Manivannan. They had contributed to the occurrence of the accident and therefore, are guilty of contributory negligence. The first respondent's Lorry was duly insured with the second respondent and the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident. The driver of the lorry possessed a valid and effective driving license at the relevant point of time. Hence, the second respondent is liable to indemnify the first respondent, if any liability is fastened. The first respondent further contended that the owners