The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles for calculating compensation in motor accident claims, including the determination of the appropriate multiplier for loss of income and the direction for the Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 made in MCOP No.1330 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants vehemently opposed the admission and hence by consent of both parties, the appeal was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The deceased one Raju Sharma met with a motor traffic accident on 28.01.2007 at about 19.00 hours. The said deceased was riding his bicycle from his apartment to nearby shop along Old Mahabalipuram Road, South to North direction. While he was proceeding opposite to Avin Tele Company, at that time, a van bearing Regn.No.TN-07-U-3197 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cyclist. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injury and he died on the spot. The claimants are wife and minor daughters of the deceased and they claimed a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The said van was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van TN-07-U-3197?

2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?

3. To what relief the petitioners are entitled to?

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,18,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:-

Loss of Income Rs.6,48,000/-

Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-

Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/-

Loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/-

-----------------

Rs.7,18,000/-

-----------------

Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, questioned only the quantum of compensation and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

5. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

6. Heard the counsel and perused the document on record. On the side of the claimants/respondents, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Mr.B.Kesav Prasath Sharma, the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P1, is the copy of the FIR. Ex.P2, is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P3, is the death certificate, Ex.P4, is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P5, is the School Character / Transfer Certificate of Deceased. Ex.P6, School Character / Transfer Certificate of 1st petitioner. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. One Mr.M.Kasali Nagimudeen, Inspector of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1. RW2, is the officer from RTO. Ex.R1, is the extract of driving license. Ex.R2, is the Authorisation letter and Ex.R3, is the policy. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. It is a question of fact and based on valid materials and evidences and so the same is confirmed.

7. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the driver of the van doe