JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order and Decree dated 25.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.5470 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.5470 of 2013, dated 25.01.2019, the appellant/insurance company is before this Court with this appeal.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(i) It is a case of fatal accident. The deceased was a 13 years old school going boy by name H.Irfan. The respondents 1 and 2 / claimants are the parents of the deceased.

(ii) According to the respondents 1 & 2 / claimants, on 18.07.2013 at about 12.45 hours, the deceased H.Irfan was riding a bicycle along Dr.Ambedkar College Road, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 39. A lorry bearing registration No.TN-22-CF-6185 belonging to the third respondent, Chennai City Municipal Corporation, which was insured with the appellant/insurance company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle, in which the minor boy was thrown away and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) At the time of the accident, the deceased was studying 8th standard and claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation, the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant / insurance company contested the claim petition on the ground that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased and no negligence can be fixed on the driver of the lorry. At the time of the accident, the driver of the lorry does not possess a valid driving license and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant/insurance company has also claimed that the compensation claimed for the death of a 13 year old boy is speculative and highly excessive.

4. In order to prove the claim, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and marked as many as thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the respondents therein, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and hence the respondents therein are liable to pay the compensation. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and the annual income at Rs.84,000/- p.a. The Tribunal added 40% towards future prospect and deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.10,58,400/-. In respect of other conventional heads the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate; thus, totalling a sum of Rs.11,69,000/- was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / insurance company filed the present appeal.

6. Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would contend that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased minor boy and without considering the evidence in its proper perspective, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the driver of the lorry. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the deceased was a school going boy aged about 13 year and without any reason whatsoever the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- and applying multiplier of 18 arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.10,58,400/-. Accor