1. The above appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 14.09.2010 passed in MVC No. 112/2007 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court I and Additional MACT, Tumkur.

2. The said claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming themselves as husband and parents of Smt. Sunandamma who is said to have met with the accident that occurred on 23.06.2006 and sustained grievous injuries to which she succumbed subsequently, wherein the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-51-E-3887 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent was involved.

3. The Tribunal by considering the evidence on record deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition til! realisation and apportioned the same in equal proportion between the three claimants.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the 1st claimant/husband of the victim is in appeal interalia contending amongst other grounds that the amount awarded is inadequate; further apportionment of the amount so awarded equally between all the three claimants is also not proper and thus seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the evidence on record, the victim was aged about 35 years; she was working in K.Mohan Garment Factory with an income of Rs.5,500/-p.m. and the Tribunal failed to consider the said contention and without any basis deemed it fit to assess the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- p.m.; further he submitted that if at all the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there were three dependants and apportioned the amount equally amongst all the 3 claimants, out of the income of the deceased, l/3rd would have been deducted towards personal expenses of the victim, whereas on the other hand the Tribunal deemed it fit to deduct 50% of the amount so assessed towards personal expenses of the deceased which is erroneous; further he submits that even in the absence of any evidence, considering the year of the accident as 2006 and the age of the victim as 35 years, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at Rs.5,500/-p.m. and thus seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the insurer/respondent submitted that as the death has occurred after discharge of the victim from the hospital, the death was either due to medical negligence or due to any other cause and as such, there is no nexus between death and the injury sustained in the accident; further he submits with regard to the amount of compensation awarded the same is just and proper and the same does not call of interference.

7. Learned Counsel for the parents submitted that apportionment of the amount awarded in equal proportion between the husband and the parents of the victim is proper and in the circumstances he relies upon the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of PAPPU-vs-THIRUNAVUKKARASU AND OTHERS [2002(1) T.A.C. 487 (Madr.)] wherein a reliance is placed upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION-vs-RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI (1987 ACJ 561) at paras 38, 39 and 43 wherein it was held that the brother of the person who dies in the motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110(A) of the Act if he is the legal representative of the deceased and on that basis of the said decision relied upon by the learned Counsel it is held that the mother of the deceased cannot be denied the right of claiming compensation merely because she is Class 3 heir and in the accident claim cases, the Tribunal cannot reject the claim petition as the Class I heir is available and thus submits that the impugned judgment and award with regard to apportionment of the amount awarded is just and proper; further he submits that in the circumstances of the case, deduction of 50% of the income assessed by the Tribunal with regard to the person