Compensation for loss of income must reflect actual loss and should not rely solely on ownership transfers posthumously.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals are directed against the Final Order and Judgment dated 22/12/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Judgment") passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in appeals bearing C.M.A. (MD) Nos.1075 of 2015 and 1076 of 2015 (both filed by the Insurance Company / R1 (Respondent No.1 herein)), against the Award dated 25/11/2014 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Claim Petitions bearing M.C.O.P No.1573 of 2009 and 1574 of 2009. The appeals preferred by R1 were allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced.

3. BRIEF FACTS:
The parents - father and mother - of the appellants were travelling in a Tempo Traveler vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle") belonging to R2 (Respondent No.2 herein) insured with R1 from Salem to Madurai. While the vehicle was near Namakkal, at that time, a bus belonging to R3 (Respondent No.3 herein) came from the opposite side and dashed into the vehicle resulting in the unfortunate death of the parents of the appellants. The bus was bearing Registration No.TN30 N0612 and was not insured.

4. The appellants filed M.C.O.P No.1573 of 2009 with regard to the death of their father claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). Likewise, they also filed M.C.O.P No.1574 of 2009 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) for the death of their mother. The claims made were more or less identical in both cases as the parents of the appellants were partners in a firm and, thus, the calculation(s) made to arrive at the claimed compensation amount(s) was the same. The appellants, in support of their claims, produced various documents including the Partnership Deed dated 01/06/2006, Income Tax Returns of the firm Sri Ganga Mills (hereinafter referred to as the "Mill") for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. R1 also filed its written objection(s). After hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.58,24,000/- (Rupees Fifty - Eight Lakhs Twenty - Four Thousand) for the father and Rs.93,61,000/- (Rupees Ninety - Three Lakhs Sixty - One Thousand) for the mother with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization. It was R1 which filed appeals before the High Court, but R3 did not challenge the Award of the Tribunal.

5. Both the appeals have been decided by the High Court vide the common Impugned Judgment. The appeals were partly allowed. Final compensation, as awarded by the High Court was Rs.26,68,600/- (Rupees Twenty - Six Lakhs Sixty - Eight Thousand Six Hundred) for the father of appellants, whereas for the mother, it was Rs.19,22,680/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty - Two Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty). A comparative overview of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and High Court is extracted below:

6. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court by the Impugned Judgment without any reasoning has upset the Award on the ground that the income from the Mill was not reduced due to the death of the deceased, and the appellants have stepped into the business of the deceased parents and the business continued after the deaths.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court