The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the correct multiplier for calculating loss of income under the Motor Vehicles Act.

V.M. VELUMANI, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Tuticorin.

2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the common Judgment and Decree, dated 29.09.2003, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tuticorin, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Facts of the case:

(i) The appellant Insurance Company is the second respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 are the petitioners/claimants and the fourth respondent in C.M.A. (MD) No. 759 of 2005/ second respondent in Cross Objection (MD) No. 57 of 2009 [owner of the car] is the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tuticorin. The respondents 1 to 3 filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002 claiming a sum of Rs.67,95,000/- and Rs.11,28,130/- for the death of Yamini, the mother of the respondents 1 and 2 and daughter of the third respondent and for the death of one Amirtha [daughter of Yamini], the sister of the respondents 1 and 2 and granddaughter of the third respondent respectively, as compensation.

(ii) According to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants, on 06.01.2001, one Yamini, the mother of the respondents 1 and 2 and daughter of the third respondent along with her daughter, viz., Amirtha and driver Selvam went to Yercaud from Tuticorin in Ford Ikon car bearing Registration No. TN-10-B-4271, belonging to one Dr. S. Arulraj, the fourth respondent in C.M.A. (MD) No. 759 of 2005/second respondent in Cross Objection (MD) No. 57 of 2009. While they were nearing Karur in Madurai-Karur Main Road about 12.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the car dashed against a bridge near Kullapatti Vilakku in Karur - Madurai Main Road. Due to that, Yamini sustained multiple injuries and immediately, she was taken to Karur Government Hospital, where she was declared dead. Her daughter viz., Amirtha, who was also travelled in the car, sustained severe injuries all over her body and also in her head. She was brought to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital, for better treatment and in spite of treatment, she died on 22.01.2001.

(iii) The Vellianai Police in Karur District has registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C.

(iv) The respondents 1 to 3/cross objectors filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2002 claiming compensation for the death of Yamini and also a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 2 of 2002 for the death of Amirtha. The present civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objection are filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2002.

(v) According to the respondents 1 to 3/cross objectors, at the time of accident, the said Yamini was educationally qualified with M.Sc. (Biology) and M.Phil Degree besides having various diploma certificates. She was also an Industrialist and business woman at Tuticorin. She was also one of the Directors in Sundaram Arulraj Health Care Centre (P) Ltd. Tuticorin Export House, Tuticorin and Finance and Leasing Company and also a partner in Tuticorin Medicals. She was also a master in Ralki Centre and running a Ralki Centre and a Beauty Parlour at Tuticorin and was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per year. Further, she was an agriculturist, earning Rs.1,50,000/- per year. The income of the deceased Yamini from business and agricultural activities was increasing every year. The accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car belonging to the fourth respondent in C.M.A. (MD) No. 759 of 2005/second respondent in Cro