The main legal point established is the application of relevant Supreme Court judgments in determining compensation for a motor vehicle accident, including the deceased's monthly income, age, and correct multipliers.

N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company, against the award of Rs.22,50,319/-;, for the death of one Ms.Rupha, aged about 27 years, home maker and also a private tuition master, allegedly earning about Rs.20,000/-; per month, in the accident, which occurred on 30.04.2015, when she was riding as a pillion rider along with her husband in a motorcycle, which was hit down by a Maruti Omni car, insured with the appellant/Insurance company, driven rashly and negligently.

2. Heard, Ms.A.Salomi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. She would submit that in the absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.11,000/-; and also applied multiplier “17” in the absence of any proof regarding age of the deceased as 27 years. Therefore, she would seek for reduction of the award amount granted by the Tribunal.

3. The only question to be decided is with regard to the quantum of compensation alone and the ground of negligence has not been contested as the Tribunal based on evidence rightly found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the Omni van, insured with the appellant/Insurance company.

4. It is proved before the Tribunal that the deceased was possessing B.A., Degree as well as B.Ed., Degree. The contention of PW1 is that she was taking tuition and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-;. However, in the absence of any other credible evidence, the Tribunal taking into consideration the educational qualification and cost of living, determined the monthly income at Rs.11,000/-;. Even otherwise, such determination is inconsonance with judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company, reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459. In the referred judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,500/-; for a vegetable vendor, who sustained injuries in the accident which occurred in the year 2008 whereas in the present case, the accident occurred on 30.04.2015. Therefore, the amount fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.11,000/-; per month is justified.

5. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased at 27 years, as per Ex.P.2-;Post mortem certificate, rightly. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW1 himself admitted that the age of the deceased was 31 years and therefore, right multiplier is “16”, when the post mortem certificate issued by the Doctor speaks about the age of the deceased as 27 years, the Tribunal rightly went by that and fixed the age of the deceased at 27 years and applied correct multiplier of “17”, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others .Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC). Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal as the age of the deceased was 27 years cannot be interfered with.

6. Since the age of the deceased was 27 years, as per the Constitution Bench’s judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 40% was rightly added by the Tribunal towards future prospects. Since the size of the family is two, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses.

7. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate, medical expenses and Loss of consortium to the 1st respondent are confirmed by this Court.

8. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-; towards loss of love and affection to the 2nd respondent/minor son, who aged about 5 years. Even though the amount is inadequate, the same is confirmed.

Head	Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	1496136
Loss of future prospects	598454
Transportation	10000
Funearl expenses	15000
Loss of estate	15000
Loss of love and affection	30000
Lo