T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. The claimant is the appellant. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Court, Tiruvannamalai by the Order dated 14.3.2008 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.797 of 2006 for the death of her husband – Santharam in a road traffic accident, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

2. The case of the claimant is as follows:

On 17.07.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased Santharam was proceeding in his Kinetic Honda bearing Regn. No.TN 07 F 3938 on Santhome High Road from south to north and reached opposite to the house of one Sivalingam, a maxi cab van bearing Regn. No.TN 22 M 8338 belonging to the first respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the same direction and dashed against the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained grievous crush injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries, on the way to hospital. A case was registered in Crime No.357/AM3/06 on the file of Adayar Police Station for the offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. The deceased was working as Assistant Special Grade Officer in University of Madras and earning Rs.23,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 57 years at the time of accident. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, the claimant/wife of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Denying the manner of accident and alleging that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased, the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company filed counter contending that the appellant - claimant has to prove age, employment and income of the deceased. The deceased had no valid driving licence and the van driver also had no valid driving licence. The claim made by the claimants is highly excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and eye witness – Sivaraman was examined as P.W.2. On the side of claimant, Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance Company.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, and also the evidence of claimant/P.W.1, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver and that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Considering the age of deceased and his employment as Assistant Special Grade Officer in University of Madras and he had one more year of service, awarded Rs.88,000/- as loss of income for one year. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.5,32,000/- (Rs.76,000/- x 7 = Rs.5,32,000/-) towards loss of dependency by adopting multiplier 7 by taking Rs.9,500/-as pension of deceased and accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- i.e., Rs.6,20,000/- (Rs.88,000/- + Rs.5,32,000/-) towards loss of dependency and Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium to the claimant together with interest at 7.5% p.a.

6. Initially, the appeal was filed by the appellant/ claimant restricting the value of the appeal to Rs.2,00,000/- and subsequently the appellant filed application in M.P.No.1 of 2012 before this Court for enhancement of the value of the appeal to Rs.17,00,000/-and the amendment was permitted by order dated 6.6.2013.

7. We have heard Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.

8. The nature of accident and the negligence aspect are not in dispute and the appeal is confined only to the quantum of compensation awarded. The deceased - husband of the claimant was aged about 57 years at the time of accident and was working as Assistant Special Grade Officer in the University of Madras. The deceased had one more year of service left for superannuation as the age of retirement in the University of Madras was 58 years. To prove the salary of deceased, Ex.P.6 was marked, wherein it was shown that the gross salary