Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. Minor Deepika lost both her parents in the accident that took place on 26.03.1999. She made claims for compensation for the death of her father as well as her mother by filing M.C.O.P.Nos.1438 and 1439 of 2000. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.11,10,576/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.1438/2000 and Rs.6,52,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1439/2000.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation was claimed on the ground that the father and mother of the claimant was running a partnership company under the name and style of "R.R. Agencies", but no proof of partnership was filed and the Tribunal had arbitrarily adopted Rs.5,500/-as the monthly income for the deceased-father. Learned counsel also submitted that when the claimant was receiving compensation on account of the death of her father, the loss of dependency arising out of her mother may have to be reduced.

3. Learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants submitted that the deceased-father was a B.Com Graduate and he was running a partnership company. Employees were examined to show the existence of the business and in fact two employees P.Ws.3 and 4 gave evidence that they earned Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/-per month respectively. Therefore, it was proved that the father of the claimant Deepika was running business in which he was employing several people and paying them salary. Therefore, even fixation of Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income is very low according to the learned counsel for the cross objectors.

4. We are able to appreciate the logic of the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants bearing in mind the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and at the same time, we are able unable to ignore the fact that there was no proof of partnership, no vouchers, no income-tax particulars or bank account. It is in these circumstances and considering oral and documentary evidence Ex.P5, the Tribunal had fixed Rs.5,500/-as the monthly income though P.W.1 had stated that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/-per month, deducted Rs.1,500/-towards personal expenses and multiplied by 12 to arrive at annual income and again by 17, which is the proper multiplier.

5. In the absence of any evidence, it is not possible for us to enhance the compensation. At the same time, we are able to understand the reseasoning of the Tribunal from Ex.P5 and the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 to arrive at the monthly income of the deceased. In these circumstances, we do not want to interfere with the compensation made by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1438 of 2000. Thus, the following award of the Tribunal is confirmed.

Loss of pecuniary benefits : Rs. 8,16,000/-

Loss of estate : Rs. 20,000/-

Loss of expectation of life : Rs. 15,000/-

Loss of love & affection : Rs. 15,000/-

Medical expenses : Rs. 2,09,576/-

Pain & suffering : Rs. 25,000/-

Funeral expenses : Rs. 10,000/-

Rs.11,10,576/- --------------------

6. As regards the claim made for compensation for the death of the mother Uma Gajalakshmi, we are unable to apprehend the submission made on behalf of the Insurance Company that because the father died in the same accident, the child should be deprived of the compensation that she is justly and reasonably entitled to the death of her mother. The tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the fact that both the parents got wipe of in the same accident and each claim is a separate claim. On that ground, the Insurance Companys liability cannot be reduced. Each claim has to be dealt with independently and on its own merits.

7. There was no evidence that the deceased-mother was also a partner in the firm. Therefore, the Tribunal relying on Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2001 ACJ 1735), where the Supreme Court held that notional income of Rs.3,000/- should be awarded for house wives, fixed Rs.3,500/-as monthly income. The monetary quantification of the work done by the women at home is something that has not been really assessed.

8. General