The court confirmed the insurer's liability and modified compensation based on notional income considerations and evidential substantiation while addressing the issues of vehicle identification and driver qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Cuddalore, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in M.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2015, dated 20.04.2021, the Insurance Company has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.1322 of 2022 and the claimants have filed the Cross Objection in Cross.Obj.No.8 of 2026.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in C.M.A.No.1322 of 2022. 3.Brief facts of the case is as follows :

On 11.02.2015, at about 06.20 hours, when the deceased Ezhilvanan, aged about 29 years, was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-BA-4385 from South to North Direction near Sivankoil Kulam, Alapakkam, the Car (Chevrolet-Tavera-Tourist-Taxi) belonging to the 5^th respondent bearing Registration No.TN-51-M-5007 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at great speed and dashed against the deceased’s motor cycle, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

4.It is the contention of the respondents 1 to 4, who are the wife, child, mother and sister of the deceased, that the deceased was a Teacher and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month and was also running a Tuition Coaching Centre, earning Rs.12,500/- per month. It is the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased was at young age of 29 years at the time of his death and therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2015 claiming a total compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- under various heads.

5.The appellant, who was the Insurer of the Car owned by the 5^th respondent, contested the case before the Tribunal by filing their counter affidavit. Before the Tribunal, the appellant disputed the involvement of the Car in the accident. It is the contention of the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the required Badge at the time of driving the Car and he did not have the valid driving licence, apart from disputing the negligence aspect and income of the deceased.

6.On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the respondents before the Tribunal, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.

7.The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.04.2021, found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car owned by the 5^th respondent and therefore, held that the appellant, who is the Insurer of the Car, is liable to pay the compensation. Further, the Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was a Teacher by profession, fixed the notional income at Rs.13,500/-. Thereafter, by adding future prospects, the Tribunal arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,900/-. Thereafter, after deducting the personal expenses of the deceased and by applying multiplier of 17, the Tribunal calculated the loss of income at Rs.25,70,400/-. Besides, the Tribunal awarded the following amounts under various other heads :

8.Accordingly, the Tribunal, awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,95,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition, payable by the appellant Insurance Company.

9.Challenging the Award of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the above Appeal in C.M.A.No.1322 of 2022 and the claimants have filed Cross.Obj.No.8 of 2026 for enhancement of compensation.

10.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would