TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. BRIEF FACTS: 3. 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 ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning 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 erred by relying on a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka Incorrectly noted in the Impugned Judgment as 'High Court of Karnataka Vs. Riyaz Ahamed' (sic) in B Parimala v Riyaz Ahmed, 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 446 to hold that the relevant factors to see for the prevailing loss of the income of the deceased is the remuneration received by them from the Mill and not the income of the Mill, which is contrary to what has been held in Paragraphs 18, 20, 22, 23 and 27 of the relied upon judgment itself i.e., B Parimala (supra), holding that when a person is an active partner and has also contributed to the capital, then a judicious decision will have to be made of the income to determine the income attributable to the efforts of the deceased and income attributable to the investment made. Further, it was contended that K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338 at Paragraphs 17 and 18, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. Moreover, it was contended that, in fact, R1 had challenged only 50 per cent of the total amount awarded by the Tribunal, but the High Court reduced the awarded amount by more than 50 per cent with regard to the father and 80 per cent with regard to the mother, way beyond what was sought for by R1. SUBMISSIONS BY R1: 10. Learned counsel for R1 submitted that the claims made by the appellants were exorbitant and even the Tribunal's Award was on the much higher side, than what was actually due and admissible to the appellants. It was submitted that rightly, the High Court reduced the quantum of amount awarded. It was argued that reduction was made after considering the evidence led by the appellants, especially of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10. It was stated that the cases referred to by the appellants did not apply to the facts of the present cases. Lastly, it was contended that the Impugned Judgment needs no interference. ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION: 11. Having examined the matter, the Court finds that the Award rendered by the Tribunal is well-considered. Though the claimed compensation was Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) each with regard to the father and the mother, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....81; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720, and; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Indira Srivastava, (2008) 2 SCC 763 including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves a broad-based approach unlike damages as noted by this court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341. The discussion in the abovementioned cases highlights that Tribunals under the Act have been granted reasonable flexibility in determining 'just' compensation and are not bound by any rigid arithmetic rules or strict evidentiary standards to compute loss unlike in the case of damages. Hence, any interference by the Appellate Courts should ordinarily be allowed only when the compensation is 'exorbitant' or 'arbitrary'. 12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation Ningam....