The court established the liability of the insurance company for compensation based on the evidence of the cause of death and the claimants' loss of dependency.

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.652 of 2010, the appellants/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. Brief facts are that on 22.4.2008 at about 7.00 P.M., near Palkara Varthan Thootam, Sukkampatti Var, on the road of Valayapatti to Sukkampatti main road, while the deceased Ganesan @ Sivakumar was riding in a by-cycle on the left side of the road, a TVS XL Super bearing registration No.TN-28 AC 5407 coming from the opposite direction owned by the first respondent insured with the second respondent driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased by-cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and also multiple injuries all over the body. After the accident, the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Namakkal where from he was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Namakkal for better treatment and thereafter, shifted to Government Hospital, Namakkal for further treatment and finally succumbed to injuries on 24.7.2008. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.171 of 2008 under Section 279 and 338 IPC was registered by Namakkal Police Station. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- by working as Mason. The claimants are mother and father of the deceased. Stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the TVS XL Super bearing registration No.TN-28 AC 5407, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

3. Denying the accident, the second respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner lodged a false complaint as if the first respondent's vehicle was driven by its driver in a negligent manner and in fact, the vehicle TN-28 AC 5407 was not involved in the accident. It is stated that the deceased was not died due to accidental injuries as the accident took place on 22.4.2008 and died on 24.7.2008. The claimants are not entitled for death claim and they only entitled for medical expenses. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the second respondent insurance company denied the age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and also stated that the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- claimed by the claimants is excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and eye-witness to the accident viz., Annamalai was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Dr. Jayanthi, who conducted post-mortem was examined as R.W.1 and Dr. Neethidevan, who treated the deceased initially at Government Hospital, Namakkal was examined as R.W.2. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver and since the first respondent's vehicle was insured with the second respondent insurance company, the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not died due to the accidental injuries and having regarding to the pathetic condition of the claimants, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, nature of injuries, pain and suffering and transport etc. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

6. It is not necessary for this Court to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded in favour of the claimants and secondly, none of those findings are under challenge. As against the said finding, no appeal has been preferred by the respondents. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the