The court clarified income assessment for compensation in a motor accident case by establishing the notional income based on job skills despite inconsistencies in income proof.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated April 25, 2025 passed by 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and II Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.2514 of 2020, the petitioner therein namely V.Karunamoorthy has preferred C.M.A. No.2052 of 2025 seeking enhancement of compensation while the second respondent therein, namely - The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred C.M.A. No.3852 of 2025 seeking to set aside the Award.

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

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. On the early hours of May 22, 2020, at about 01:15 hours, the petitioner was driving a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-02-AL-7299. He was proceeding from Janappan Chathram Koot Road towards Padi, Chennai, on GNT Road, Sholavaram, Tiruvallur District.

3.1. At that time, a Container Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28- BA-7003, was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and in violation of traffic rules. It was coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the said Container Lorry drove the vehicle in a zigzag manner and suddenly turned without giving any signal or indication, thereby colliding with the petitioner’s Lorry.

3.2. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained fractures in both legs along with multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted at F.O.R. Ortho and Neuro Hospital, Chennai and thereafter took further treatment in other private hospitals.

3.3. In connection with the accident, a criminal case was registered on the file of the Sholavaram Police Station against the driver of the said Container Lorry in Crime No.1906 of 2020, for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3.4. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 27 years and was employed as a Lorry Driver under M/s.Royal Aqua Lorry Service, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The first respondent is the owner of the offending Container Lorry and the second respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Container Lorry and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present Claim Petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/-.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. Despite notice to the first respondent, he did not choose to contest the Original Petition, hence he was called absent and set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE:

5. The second respondent filed counter contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. Apart from the routine formal contentions and denials, it was contended that the medical bills produced were created for the purpose of the claim and therefore could not be considered as valid evidence. It was also stated that the discharge summary does not indicate that the petitioner is unable to continue his avocation as a Lorry Driver. Stating so, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. At trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. One Lakshmi, Junior Assistant from Regional Transport Office, Ariyalur was examined as P.W.2. Yashwanth, Manager from Shifa Royal Aqua Products was examined as P.W.3. Kavin Kumaran, Administrative Officer from F.O.R. Ortho and Neuro Hospital was examined as P.W.4. Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.22 were marked. On the side of the resp