J U D G M E N T

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah, J)

The appeal is heard through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been filed as against the award dated 20.08.2020 made in MCOP.No.2171 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal / II Court of Small Causes, Chennai on the claim petitions filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The respondents 1 and 2 / claimants, are the mother and father of the deceased Vijay Srivatsan. It is the specific case of the claimants that on 25.02.2017 at about 06.15 hours, their son Vijay Srivatsan was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No.PY 01 AE 0936 from Chennai to Pondicherry on the ECR Road. While he was nearing Mamallapuram, a Bus bearing Registration No.PY 01 AE 0936, which was insured with the appellant herein, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot.

(ii) It is the further case of the claimants that their son was working as an Associate Engineer-CAD and earned a sum of Rs.65,925/- per month. Thus, they made a claim for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The said claim was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a counter statement denying the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. They also denied the manner of the accident as stated by the claimants in the claim petition. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. In order to prove the claim on the side of the claimants, the first claimant / the mother of the deceased, examined herself as PW1, besides 2 other witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 and 26 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P26. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor documents were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, had come to the conclusion that the accident is the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.PY 01 AE 0936 belonging to the third respondent herein. By coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.82,59,686/- as compensation and directed the appellant-

Insurance Company to pay the said amount. The break-up details of the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows:

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the deceased died on account of the head injury that occurred at the accident. Hence, it is clear that if the deceased had worn helmet at the time of the accident, he would have survived. Therefore, certain percentage of negligence ought to have been fixed on the part of the deceased and consequently, compensation has to be deducted in proportionate to the percentage of negligence.

8. That apart, the learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that while calculating the amount under the head “Loss of Income”, the Tribunal had taken the entire gross salary of the deceased without deducting the variables, namely, the supplementary allowances and other special allowances. Further, the annual salary of the deceased was above Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax, and hence, the amount awarded under the head "Loss of Dependency" is to be re-calculated.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants made his submissions supporting the awarded passed by the Tribunal.

10. Keeping in mind the above submissions made on either side, we have carefully perused the materials available on record.

11. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the deceased died on account of head injury that occurred a