The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims based on the deceased's income, future prospects, and other relevant factors.

C.M.A.No.1903 of 2015 is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 14.11.2014, made in O.P.No.6157 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

2. C.M.A.No.499 of 2016 is filed by the claimants against the award dated dated 14.11.2014, made in O.P.No.6157 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

3. On 17.10.2012 at about 16.30 hrs., while the deceased was crossing MMDA colony main road, Arumbakkam, Chennai, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-25-B-1969 proceeding from South to North belonging to the 7th respondent College and insured with the appellant Insurance Company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased, as a result, he died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, a case registered against the driver of the bus in Cr.No.518/AS2/2012, on the file of the K4 Anna Nagar Traffic Investigation Police Station, Chennai. Subsequently, the claimants, being the wife, children and parents, have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the 7th respondent College and insured with the appellant Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.16,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have filed the present appeals.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was a coolie and there was no document to substantiate that he was earning Rs.500/- per day as claimed by the claimants, therefore, in terms of Syed Sadiq and others V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC), the Tribunal ought to have fixed Rs.6500/- as the monthly income of the deceased, instead of Rs.7000/-. It is also his further contention that the Tribunal has also committed yet another mistake in adding 50% of his salary towards future prospects, when the deceased was not in permanent employment. On these short grounds, he prayed for interference of the award passed by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the materials available on record and has rightly awarded a just and reasonable compensation, therefore, he pleaded, the award passed by the Tribunal may be confirmed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. At the time of accident, the deceased was 34 years old. The deceased was working as coolie and he said to have earned Rs.500/- per day, but, there was no document to substantiate the same. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, this Court, by following the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Syed Sadiq's case (cited supra), wherein, for a vegetable vendor, in respect of the accident of the year 2008, the Honourable Apex Court, fixed the monthly income at Rs.6500/-, even in the absence of any material evidence, is inclined to fix a sum of Rs.6,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Accordingly, by fixing so, this Court also hereby confirms the multiplier 16' as well as the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, as the same are in fine tune with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)]. As the deceased was only 34 years old, the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013 (3) CTC 883 (SC) has rightly added 50% towards fu