The main legal point established is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, considering loss of earnings, future prospects, and personal expenses of the deceased.

V. DHANAPALAN, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company against the Award, dated 27.02.2012 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 146 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Pondicherry.

2. The respondent 1 to 3 claimants have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal stating that the first and second claimants are the parents of the deceased Thanigaivelan @ Thanigaivel and the third claimant is the unmarried sister of the deceased. The deceased was a graduate and was working as Engineer in J.J. Polymers and getting a salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. He was the only earning member in his family. His family was mostly depending upon the income of the deceased. On 11.10.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. at Pondy Villupuram Main Road, opposite to Balaji Jewellery, Vadamangalam, Villianur Commune, Pondicherry, when the deceased was riding his motor-cycle bearing Registration No. PY-01-W-6517 from West to East slowly by keeping left, at the time, a Tractor bearing Registration No. TN-32-X-3141, belonging to the fourth respondent herein and driven by one Purushotharaman, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, came from opposite direction and hit the motor-cycle of the deceased, thereby he was thrown away from the motor-cycle and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Due to the death of the deceased, his family is suffering a lot for financial assistance. The motor-cycle was also damaged. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the fourth respondent herein. Since the fourth respondent's vehicle is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, they are liable to pay the compensation and hence, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 40 lakhs.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement before the Tribunal denying that the fourth respondent's vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing the death of the deceased. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. They further deny that the fourth respondent's vehicle was insured with them at the relevant time. The claimants have to prove the occupation and income of the deceased and his death. The claimants have to prove that the driver of the fourth respondent was having valid driving licence, permit and R.C. on the date of occurrence. They further stated that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant-father was examined as P.W.1, besides P.Ws.2 and 3 and on their side, Exs.P-1 to P-17 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the above oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the fourth respondent's driver and not due to the deceased and held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereby, awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from 11.12.2006 till the date of payment, under the following heads:-

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that he is not challenging the negligence and liability determined by the Tribunal and mainly focussed his arguments with regard to the quantum of compensation. He submitted that the monthly income of the deceased, fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He fairly submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prosp