T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

This appeal has been filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd against the award dated 01.07.2008 in M.C.O.P.No.579 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode.

2. The respondents/claimants are the legal heirs of one Padmanaban, who died in a road accident. The said Padmanaban was walking on Rasipuram-Salem main road on 29.03.2005 at about 9.30 a.m., proceeding to the Head Post Office, Rasipuram, at that time, a TVS 50 bearing registration No.TN-28L-4701 driven by the third respondent herein coming from the opposite direction dashed on Padmanaban and thus the accident occurred, he was immediately taken to Dr.Manickam Hospital, from where he was shifted to Kaveri Medical Centre, Erode for better treatment and despite such treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 31.03.2005. The deceased was aged about 56 years at the time of accident and he was working as the Senior Accountant Officer in the office of the Accountant General Office, Chennai and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.29,073/- and he was the only breadwinner of his family and the claimants are his wife and minor son.

3. The owner of the vehicle opposed the claim as regards the nature of the accident as well as the amount of compensation claimed. The appellant Insurance company denied the accident. Further, it was contended that the rider of the two wheeler did not have valid licence on the date of the accident and the fourth respondent herein did not insure the vehicle and therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed. Further, it was stated that the victim died due to heart ailment and not due to injuries sustained.

4. The Tribunal framed two questions for consideration :-

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent herein? and

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation if so, what would be the quantum?

5. The claimants marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9 and the first claimant examined herself as PW-1 and one Mr.Saravanan eye witness of the accident was examined as PW-2; on the side of the respondents seven documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R7 and seven witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-7.

6. The Tribunal answered question No.1 in favour of the claimants and held that the accident occurred only due to the careless driving of the third respondent herein. While, deciding the question as to whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, the contention that the rider did not have valid licence to drive a two wheeler was taken up for consideration. The Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Premkumari and Others Vs. Prahlad Dev and Others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 115 (SC) held that the appellant Insurance company will have to pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants and recover the same from the other respondents.

7. On the question of quantum of the compensation payable, the Tribunal considered the evidence of RW-3, the Doctor from P.M.Hospital at Rasipuram, who gave treatment to the deceased Padmanaban on 29.03.2005 and RW-4, the Doctor from Kaveri Medical Centre, who had treated the Padmanaban and after going through the particulars of the treatment given as per the Ex.R.2 concluded that the victim was admitted to the hospital only after getting treatment for the injuries sustained. The age of the victim was taken as 56 years from the Post-Mortem Certificate, Ex.P5. For calculating the total emoluments earned by the victim, the Tribunal took note of Ex.P.9, which is the certificate issued by the competent authority of the office of Accountant General, Chennai and since the certificate was not disputed, the monthly income of the victim was fixed at Rs.29,666/- and rounded of to Rs.30,000/-. After deducted 10,000/-for personal expenses, the annual dependency was calculated at Rs.2,40,000/-. The age of the first claimant was 43 years and the second claimant was a minor and the Tribunal adop