The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for fair and reasonable compensation based on accepted legal standards in cases of death under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award and Decree dated 21.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.590 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court-V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The deceased Devaraj met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 25.05.2000 at about 11.00 p.m. He was a pillion-rider of the Motor vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 37 S 2031 and one Senthilkumar was riding the said motorcycle and they were proceeding to Palladam. When they were nearing the curve at the western side of Chinthamani-Pudur Bye Pass Road, the rider drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit on a milestone situated on the road-side. As a result of the said accident, rider and the pillion rider were thrown out and they had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Hospital and died on 26.05.2000. The claimants are father and mother of the said deceased and they have claimed for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-as compensation. The said vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Who is responsible for the accident? Whether the compensation has to be awarded? If so, who is responsible to pay the compensation?

2. What is the quantum of compensation?"

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,58,993/- with interest at 9% p.a. The details of the compensation are as follows:

Loss of income- Rs. 7,19,304.00

Loss of love and affection- Rs. 20,000.00

Funeral- Rs. 3,000.00

Medical Expenses- Rs. 16,689.00

Total- Rs. 7,58,993.00

Aggrieved by that award, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and justification. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income and also wrongly adopted a multiplier of 17. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P12 were marked.

P.W.1 - Santhamani is the mother of the deceased. P.W2-M.Venkatesan is an eye witness of the accident. P.W.3-Vijayakumar is the Time Keeper of the Selvaraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the copy of the postmortem Report. Ex.P5 is the Death Certificate of the deceased. Ex.P6 is the Legal heir Certificate of the deceased. Ex.P7 is the Salary slip of the deceased. Ex.P8 is the copy of the Insurance Policy of TN37S 2031. Ex.P9 is the Medical Bill stands in the name of the deceased. Ex.P10 is the authorization letter given to one B.Vijayakumar to give evidence. Ex.P11 is the copy of Salary Certificate and Salary Slip of the deceased. Ex.P12 is the copy of Muster Roll of Selvaraj Mills . On the side of Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the ri