The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for assessing compensation in cases of death, including the multiplier method and factors to be considered before awarding compensation.

1. The Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 05.04.2002 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.196 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Gobichettipalayam.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 21.03.2001 at about 2.00 p.m., in the poramboke land at Kavilipalayam, the 7th Respondent-driver drove the tractor bearing registered No.TCD-1568, owned by the 8th Respondent and insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against one Sivakumar, who sustained fatal injuries and died. The claimants are wife, minor daughter, father, mother and two unmarried brothers of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The Appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. In whose negligence the accident occurred?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, how much”

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Seventh Respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,98,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition and the details of the same are as under:

Loss of Income to the family : Rs.7,88,400/-

Loss of Love and Affection : Rs.5,000/-

Funeral Expenses : Rs.5,000/-

Total : Rs.7,98,400/-

Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company has questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income at Rs.4500/- without any basis and wrongly adopted the multiplier of 18 and the interest awarded at the rate of 9% per annum is also on the higher side and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 6 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 counsel. On the side of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the Respondents no one was examined and Ex.R1-Insurance policy was marked. PW1 is the father of the deceased. PW2 one Ponnusamy is the eye witness to the accident. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Rough Sketch. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the Observation Mahazer. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the Inquest Report. Ex.P7 is the certified copy of the Charge-sheet. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the Judgment. Ex.P9 is the xerox copy of the legal Heirship Certificate. Ex.P10 is the Income Certificate. Ex.P11 is the xerox copy of the Sale Deed. Ex.P12 is the Kanthaya Receipts. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Seventh Respondent-the driver of the Tractor, which belonging to the eight Respondent and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.

6. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2009 (4) MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows:

“7. Before considering the questions ari