The tribunal erred in adopting 50% increase in the monthly income towards future prospects. The tribunal was not right in adopting 50% towards future prospects. The tribunal was justified in awarding a certain amount towards loss of income during treatment period. The tribunal erred in granting a sum of Rs. 39,000/- and Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of income for a period of six months and three months. Most of the injuries are lacerated injuries and hence the award of loss of income for a period of six months and three months, in our considered opinion, cannot be sustained.

R. Subramanian, J.

The challenge in these appeals by the insurance company is to the awards made in MCOP Nos. 115, 116 and 117 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub- Court) Hosur in and by which the tribunal awarded a sum of 20,69,000/-for the death of one Anil Kumar in MCOP 115 of 2013, a sum of 2,26,000/-for the injuries suffered by the claimant Ramakal and a sum of 277,000/-for the injuries suffered by one Kumaresh in a motor accident that occurred on 25-11-2012.

2. The claimant in MCOP 115 of 2013 is the mother of the deceased Anil Kumar. According to the claimants the deceased Anil Kumar was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No. TN-24-Z-7885 with one Ramakal as a pillion rider one Naveenkumar who was riding the two wheeler bearing registration No. TN 70-F-1230 belonging to the second respondent drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the two wheeler driven by the deceased Anil Kumar. As a result of the said accident both the rider and the pillion rider of the two wheeler bearing registration No: TN 24-Z-7885 were thrown off the vehicle and suffered grievous injuries. They were removed to the Hosur government hospital where Anil Kumar was declared dead. The pillion rider of the two wheeler driven by Naveen Kumar namely, Kumaresh also suffered grievous injuries.

3. Claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler bearing registration No. TN-70-F-1230 all the claimants sought for compensation from the appellant insurance company being the insurer of the said two wheeler. In MCOP115 of 2013 the claimant is the mother of the deceased Anil Kumar. She would contend that her son was working as a painter and earning more than 12,000 per month and seek a compensation of 20lakhs. The claimant in MCOP 116 of 2013 would claim that she was doing milk vending business apart from working as agricultural coolie and earning 10,000 per month and because of the injuries caused in the accident she had suffered a permanent disability. Therefore she sought for a compensation of 5 lakhs. The claimant in MCOP 117 of 2013 who was a pillion rider in the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-70-F-1230 sought for a compensation of 10 lakhs claiming that he was working as a painter and earning Rs. 12,000 per month and the injuries sustained by him in the accident had resulted in permanent disability preventing him from doing his job as a painter.

4. The insurance company resisted the claim petitions contending that the accident did not happen in the manner suggested by the claimants. It would further contend that the deceased Anil Kumar who was riding the two wheeler also contributed to the accident by his rash and negligent driving. The particulars relating to age and income of the deceased as well as the injured claimants were denied by the Insurance Company.

5. Since all the three claim petitions arose out of the same accident the claims Tribunal tried them together and passed a common award which is being questioned by the insurance company, as excessive, in these appeals.

6. We have heard Mr. Srinivasan Ramalingam, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. Mukund R. Pandian for Mr. M. Sriram appearing for the respondents/claimants in all the appeals.. The owner of the offending two wheeler who figured as the first respondent in all the original petitions before the tribunal remained exparte before the tribunal and hence notice to him, in these appeals, is dispensed with.

7. Mr. Srinivasan Ramalingam learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously contend that the tribunal erred in adopting 50% increase in the monthly income towards future prospects. He would also fault the tribunal for fixing the monthly income at Rs. 12,000 inasmuch as there was no evidence to prove the income of the deceased Anil Kumar. As regards the injury cases the learned counsel for the insu