IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CMA No. 1669 of 2023

1. V.Devasena

2. S.Vasanth

3. S.Sudharsan ... Appellants/Claimants Vs

1. M.Devi W/o. Mani

2. The Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd., 252, NSC Bose Road Chennai – 01. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded in the Judgment dated 01.06.2023 made in MCOP No. 28 of 2022 on the file of the Ld.

Special District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Thiruvallur.

***

For Appellants : Mr. N.Manoharan st For 1 Respondent : No appearance nd For 2 Respondent: Mr. T.Rajanandhini for M/s. C.Ramesh Babu

J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was made by K.RAJASEKAR, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No. 28 of 2022 by the award dated 01.06.2023.

2. The case of the claimants / appellants is that they are the dependents of the deceased M.Srinivasan, who was died in the road accident took place on 10.07.2021 at about 09.47 pm. According to him, the deceased was riding his motor cycle on the left side of the Tiruvallur to Tiruttani High Road, while reached near, just opposite to Jaua Engineering College, a tempo traveler ambulance bearing registration No. TN-20- CZ-0363 came in the opposite direction crossed the middle of the road and hit on the two wheeler which resulted in causing grievous injuries to the rider. Subsequently, he scuccumed to the injuries. Hence, the appellants have come forward with this claim for compensation of Rs.3/- crores, by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

3. It is also pleaded by them that the deceased was doing business in manufacturing and selling steel and connected materials and he was a good income and he was also an income tax assessee.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company challenging negligence pleaded as well as disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants herein. The Tribunal after framing necessary points for consideration, as accepted the case of the claimants that the driver of the ambulance was responsible for causing accident and the insurer of the ambulance is liable to pay compensation to the defendants. However, the Tribunal has held that since the deceased in this case was not wearing the helmet. He has also contributed to the accident to extent of 10%. While deciding the quantum, the Tribunal after considering the income tax returns filed prior to the death of the deceased that is for the assessment year 2021-2022 is to be taken for assissing the loss of income and accordingly fixed the loss of income and totally awarded after adding conventional heads as Rs.28,73,329/- and further it is also deducted 10% for contributatory negligence. Aggrieved over the contributory negligence fixed on the decased and also seeking enhancement of compensation, this Appeal has been filed by the claimants.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased filed his income tax return under Section 44AD, 44ADA or 44AE of the Income Tax Return which provides certain benefits to the small time business man and pay tax with some consessional rates and accordingly, he has utilised the opportunity and paid the income tax. Though he is having a high turn over for the purpose of paying the income tax and the same is not reflected in income tax returns. He further submitted the actual income of the turn over, income would be after deduction of 70 – 75% of the turn over. Hence, he prays to fix the income after dedecuting 75% of the turn over and the remainder to be taken as taxable income and fix it as a loss of income. He further submitted that the fixing of 10% of the contributory negligence is also unwarranted and is to modify the same.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Com