The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor accident case, including the assessment of the deceased's monthly income and the liability of the Insurance Company in the absence of a valid driving license for the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2012 in MCOP No.240 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Pudukottai. The first claimant is the wife of the deceased in a road accident and the claimants 2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased, born through the first claimant. The fifth claimant is the mother and the sixth claimant is the father of the deceased. One Adaikkalam died in a road accident on 30.04.2008 while he was travelling in a two-wheeler viz. TVS-50. His two-wheeler was hit by a heavy vehicle Tata-ACE bearing Registration No.TN-55-Q-6820. The appellant is the insurer of the aforesaid heavy vehicle.

2. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years and the same is not in dispute. The claimants claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- through agriculture as well as timber business. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the appellant, who was the second respondent in MCOP No.240 of 2012, two witnesses have been examined and documents Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. The Tribunal directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.12,27,000/- as compensation to the claimants, under various heads.

3. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- based on Exs.P6 to P8, which are the documents showing that the lands were owned by the deceased. The Tribunal provided 1/4th of the amount towards deduction for personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/-. The Tribunal used the multiplier of 16, taking into account the age of the deceased as 40. Thereafter, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and awarded a total sum of Rs.12,27,000/-. The details are as under:

The Tribunal directed apportionment of the aforesaid compensation to the claimants in a particular ratio.

4. The appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal mainly questioning the award on two grounds. Firstly, it is the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal had committed error in fixing the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that even after the death of the deceased, the lands are available and therefore, there was no loss of income from the lands and hence, the Tribunal committed error in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. I am not agreeing with the above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The deceased was aged 40 years and he was taking care of agriculture. The wife, who is a widow could not carry out the agricultural operation as was done by her husband. Further, there are 3 minor children who could also not carry out the agricultural operation. The parents of the deceased are aged persons and they could also not carry out the agricultural operation. Even in the absence of any proof of income, the monthly income can be fixed at Rs.6,000/- as per the decision of this Court in M.Sengabagam v. V.Vinod Kumar, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 450 (DB).

6. In this case, admittedly, the deceased was cultivating 8 acres and the same is not seriously disputed. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly earning has been fixed on the higher side.

7. In fact, as rightly contend