The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings of negligence by the respondent's driver, modified the compensation to Rs.21,10,000/-, and established principles regarding accident liability and notional income assessment.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated September 5, 2022 passed by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge No.1, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.1944 of 2018, the petitioners therein have preferred C.M.A. No.1985 of 2025 praying to enhance the compensation awarded, while the respondent therein namely Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India Pvt. Ltd., has preferred C.M.A. No.1832 of 2024 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 husband of the deceased - Shankari;second and third petitioners are their daughter and son respectively.

4.1. On February 2, 2018 at about 07:00 a.m., the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-05-BH-3236 at Gemini Flyover, on its eastern side in north to south direction, at that time, sole respondent's car bearing Registration No.TN-19-AC-1949 driven in a rash and negligent manner at a dangerous speed in the same direction as the deceased, dashed against the said motorcycle from its backside.

4.2. Due to the resultant impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. After being administered first aid at Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, she was transferred to Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai where unfortunately despite treatment she passed away on February 5, 2018.

4.3. A First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.49 of 2018 was registered on the file of the TIW - Pondy Bazaar, in connection with the accident, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the driver of the respondent's car.

4.4. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 45 years and she was a Hindi Teacher; she was conducting coaching classes for 87 students and was thereby earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month.

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 respondent’s car. The respondent being the owner of the car is liable to compensate the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only).

RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The 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 respondent's car. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. Stating so, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and an ocular witness namely Mr.Gunasekaran was examined as P.W.2 and one Mrs.Yamuna, who is said to have worked under the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.21 were marked. On the side of the respondent, one Mr.Neelaram, Assistant Manager in respondent - Company, who was driving the alleged offending car at the material point of time, was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.4 were marked.

7. The Tribunal heard either side and considered the evidence available on record. The Tribunal relied on Ex-P.1 - F.I.R., and the evidence of P.W.1 and the oc