R. Mahadevan, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V), Chennai in M.C.O.P. No. 3710 of 2001. The cross-objection has been filed by the claimants seeking an enhancement.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their rank in the original petition.

3. Initially, the claim petition was filed by Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident that occurred on 20.7.2001. The claim petition was filed on 26.7.2001 and during the pendency of the claim petition, Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh passed away due to complications of the injuries. The legal heirs were impleaded and the claim petition was amended and the claim was altered to Rs. 8,00,000. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,30,000 with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Aggrieved, the appeal has been filed by the insurance company and the cross-objections have been filed by the claimants for enhancement.

4. The negligence and validity of insurance policy are not in dispute.

5. Heard the counsel for the respondent insurance company and the counsel for the claimants. The respondent No. 1 has not entered his appearance before this court. The records were called for from the Tribunal and examined.

6. The counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 2, has assailed the order of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal ought to have closed the claim petition as abated after the death of Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh. The counsel further confronted that the award of the Tribunal contending that the death of the said Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh has no nexus with the accident, that the said Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh took treatment only as an outpatient and no post-mortem was conducted to support the contention of the claimants that the death was a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. The counsel also contended that the Tribunal has awarded huge sums.

7. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at just Rs. 3,000 instead of Rs. 4,500 and paltry sums were awarded for loss of consortium, continuing expenses, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and no compensation on account of future prospects was awarded. The counsel relying upon the judgment reported in Govind Singh v. A.S. Kailasam, 1975 ACJ 215 (Madras) and Khairullah v. Anita, 1994 ACJ 1017 (AP), contended that the claim cannot be rejected on the ground that post-mortem was not conducted. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgments reported in Vatsala v. Meenakshi, 2005 (1) TN MAC 62; Maricar Motors Ltd. v. Neelambal Ramaswamy, 1982 ACJ (Supp) 570 (Madras); and the judgment delivered in C.M.A. No. 1305 of 2012 to contend that the legal heirs can very well maintain a claim for compensation for the death by impleading themselves in the claim petition filed by the deceased. The counsel also placed reliance upon the judgments reported in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC); Vimal Kamvar v. Kishore Dan, 2013 ACJ 1441 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), in support of his claim for enhancement.

8. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:

"166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by th