S. Manikumar, J.

In the accident, which occurred on 12-8-2007, involving a Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. KA 01 ED 6870, mother of the respondents/claimants, aged 48 years and stated to be a House Keeper, earning Rs. 4,200/- per month, died. Daughter and Sons have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. In respect of avocation and income drawn by the deceased, the e respondents/claimants have examined one if Mr. Subramaniam as PW.2, who has produced Ex. P7-Salary Certificate and Ex. P8 - Cash Voucher. PW.2 has also deposed that I there would be possibility for increments and r permanent employment. Evidence has been adduced to the effect that the deceased would be entitled to bonus, at the rate of 8.33%. Considering the testimony of PW.2, coupled with the documents, Exs. P7 and P8, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/-, though in the claim petition, it was claimed at - Rs. 4,200/-. Fixing the age of the deceased as 45 years, by applying ‘15’ multiplier and after deducting l/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has computed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs. 6,00,120/-. Apart from the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation expenses Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,37,120/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. Though Mr. N.B. Surekha, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the said contention, for the reason that the Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by PW.2, to prove employment and salary drawn by the deceased, with likelihood of 8.33% bound, has fixed the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/-, for the purpose of computing loss of contribution to the family.

3. Though the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also contended that the married daughter and sons of the deceased are not entitled to compensation, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, in the light of the decisions of this Court in United India Insurance Company v. Kasiammal, reported in 1997 (III) CTC 346 wherein, one of the contentions raised therein, challenging the award, was that a married son, living separately, not a dependant and hence, not entitled to claim compensation.

The short question framed by this Court, at Paragraph 6 of the judgment, was whether the claimants, who were married sons and married daughters, entitled for compensation ? While addressing the abovesaid question, this Court has considered two decisions relied on by the appellant Insurance Company therein in Revanben v. Kantibhai Narottamhai Gohil, reported in 1995 ACJ 548 and U.R State Road Transport Corporation v. Tara Devi, reported in 1995 ACJ 1220 : (1996 AIHC 2571 (All). and also the decisions of the Apex Court in Bhagwatidin v. Gheesalal, reported in 1980 ACJ 116. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1690 and Pushpam v. Nirmala, reported in 1991 TLNJ 101, and at Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 held as follows :

"15. As pointed out earlier, the compensation amount is being paid to the legal representatives on account of untimely death of their ancestor. The dependency of the legal representatives is a question to be considered and does no mean only the dependents can claim compensation. The compensation being the amount for the loss to the estate of the deceased, it has to be considered as to whether the legal representatives had been put to loss because of the death of the deceased. Wherever the deceased is an earning member, naturally his savings is an accumulation for the estate which can be divided by the legal representatives after the death of the deceased. As the legal representatives had b