This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurer is against a judgment and award dated 10.01.2011, passed by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1146 of 2008. The respondents/claimants have also filed a cross objection against the said judgment and award.

2. On 02.06.2007, the deceased victim Ragunathan was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-58-Q-5594 to Nagamalai, Pudukottai District on personal work along with one Mr.Raman, the Contractor of his Firm, who was following him in a different vehicle. When they were nearing H.M.S.Colony on the left side of Theni-Madurai road, a TATA 709 milk van bearing Registration No.TN-72-C-6919, owned by the 4th respondent and covered by a policy of insurance taken out by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner in uncontrollable speed, came from the opposite direction, without blowing the horn and collided against the motorcycle.

3. As a result of the accident, the deceased victim Ragunathan was thrown off the vehicle and he fell unconscious. The Contractor Raman, who was following the deceased in on other vehicle stopped his vehicle and took Ragunathan to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai in an ambulance. The doctors of the hospital declared the deceased victim as brought death.

4. The heirs of the deceased victim, namely, the private respondents filed an application for compensation inter alia under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V.Act") inter alia contending that the accident, which caused the death of the victim was on account of the negligence of the offending vehicle. It appears that the Police duly registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle inter alia under Section 304-A of IPC, which was numbered as Crime No.95 of 2007.

5. The respondents claimants, being the wife and the two minor children of the deceased victim claimed total compensation of Rs.1 Crore under various heads. While the trial was in progress, the father-in-law of the 1st claimant, that is, father of the deceased victim was impleaded. However, such impleadment was, in our view, inconsequential, since the father is not a Class-I heir under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In terms whereof, the mother, wife and children and in case of predeceased children, the children of such pre deceased children are Class-I heirs. The father is only an heir of the Second Class, who would inherit in case of failure of heirs of the First Class and not otherwise.

6. The appellant insurer filed an application before the learned Tribunal under Section 170 of the M.V.Act, seeking leave to contest the claim on all grounds and this was duly allowed by the learned Tribunal. The claim was decided exparte as against the owner, who chose not to appear.

7. In the course of proceedings before the learned Tribunal, it was established that the deceased victim Ragunathan had been working in M/s. Fenner India Ltd., Madurai, a multinational Company as Sales Executive Engineer. It was proved that at the time of accident, the deceased victim was aged 40 years and was getting gross salary of Rs.23,272/- in addition to special allowances, bonus and incentives of Rs.12,000/- per month. It was also proved that the accident took place due to the negligence and fault of the offending vehicle.

8. To prove the income of the deceased victim, the claimants only examined the wife of the deceased victim (PW1), and also examined an employee of M/s.Fenner India Ltd., who proved Ex.P8, a letter addressed to P.W.1 by the General Manager, H.R., M/s.Fenner India Ltd., informing her of the projected salary of the deceased victim for the month of May, 2007. The pay slip showed that the net pay of the victim was Rs.13,221/-.

9. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased victim had monthly income of