1. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 04.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1351 of 2013 the insurer filed this appeal against award of tribunal.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the claim petition.

3. It is the case of fatal accident, happened on 03.02.2013, while deceased working as Lady Tailor and aged 23 years and earned 15,000/- PM. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry driver of the first respondent owner of vehicle, since the first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent insurance company, the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Based on the pleadings and evidences the learned tribunal granted compensation under following heads :-

Sl. No.	Head	Amount awarded by the Tribunal
1.	Loss of Income (Rs. 6,000 x 12 X 18)	Rs. 12,96,000/-
2.	Love & Affection for Husband	Rs. 50,000/002D
3.	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
Total		Rs. 13,71,000/-

4. Since negligence and liability are not disputed either of parties and only Quantum of compensation arrived by the tribunal is inadequate, hence this court not traversed with regard to negligence and Liability fixed by the tribunal are confirmed

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. On the side of the respondents, No oral and documentary adduced.

6. Challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant vehemently argued that without any proof of income a sum of Rs.6,000/- fixed by tribunal is without any basis and added 50% towards future prospects and deducted 1/32 towards persona expenses against rulings of the apex court, hence he pray for reduce the award.

7. Per contra learned Counsel for Claimants submitted that the accident happen only on 03.02.2013 and deceased doing as Lady Tailoring and earned not less then Rs. 15,000/- per month and as per rulings this Hon’ble Division Bench if the earning women may not spend more then 1/3. moreover the deceased was pregnant at the time of accident and foetus in mother’s womb, it could be treated as child, hence as per rulings this Court reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 552 and another Judgment reported in 2017 SCC Online Delhi 10278 he pray for seeking compensation under head of loss of child, since foatus 4 months old, hence pray for Rs.2,50,000/- and seeking enhancement of the compensation in other conventional heads and further pointed out as per settled possession of law that this court can award more compensation in absence of any appeal or cross appeal, as just compensation. It is further argued that the tribunal not considers award in favour of the parents of the deceased. Hence he pray for award to the Claimants 2 and 3.

8. I have heard Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3/Claimants and Mr. Venkateshkumar, learned Government Advocate for the 5th respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

9. As far as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, according to the husband of the deceased, who examined as PW-1, categorically states that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m; by doing tailoring business, but no documentary evidence were produced, absence of it the tribunal taken Rs.6,000/- p.m., as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents and even as per rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeta case Reported in 2015 (1) TNMAC 161 (SC) for carpenter a notional income of Rs.12,000/- fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the accident happened on the year of