The court held that the adequacy of compensation must be supported by proper evidence regarding the claimant's income and disability.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The appellant / Insurance Company, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court), Kallakurichi, in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2013, dated

27.04.2019, has filed the present appeal.

2. Cross Objection No.19 of 2023 has been filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal vide award dated 27.04.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court), Kallakurichi.

3. Both the appeal and cross objection arise out of the same accident and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

5. On 20.03.2009, at about 19.30 hours, when the claimant was walking on the left mud portion of Kallakurichi to Ka Mamanandal Road, near Nalla Valliamman rice mill, the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 32 R 4553 passenger auto belonging to the first respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the claim petition was filed by the claimant against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the auto.

6. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the auto. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation payable at Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal directed the above compensation to be paid by the second respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

7. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed the appeal.

8. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed Cross Objection No.19 of 2023 for enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for appellant /

Insurance Company and Ms.K.Nithyashree, learned counsel for the first respondent / Cross objector.

10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

11. This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that though the claimant submitted that he sustained 35% disability, due to which, he could not continue his avocation and he was de-promoted and his pay was reduced, the employer was not examined to prove the said fact before the Tribunal. Without examining the employer and ascertaining the income (i.e.,) prior to the accident and after the accident, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.42,783/-. Hence, this Court may remand the matter back to the Tribunal to ascertain the income of the claimant (i.e.,) prior to the accident and after the accident by examining the employer and to verify the fact as to whether due to medical degradation, the claimant's pay was reduced.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that in order to prove the income, the claimant has marked the pay slips which were marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. Taking into consideration of the above documents, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant which does not require any interference by this Court and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, she prays for dismissal of this appeal.

14. The second respondent rema