The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for loss of consortium and love and affection, and the application of legal precedents to adjust the calculation of the deceased's income.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vedasanthur/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2013, dated 31.08.2015.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the award, dated 31.08.2015, in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Vedasanthur.

2. The Appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimants for the death of one Manikandan, who died consequent to an accident occurred on 28.02.2013, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at by the tribunal. Though the Appellant/Insurer, in their memorandum of appeal, has questioned the findings of the tribunal with respect to the negligence aspect, the same was not pressed into service and the challenge is only with respect to the quantum of award granted by the tribunal.

3. During enquiry before the tribunal, the claimants have examined the first claimant and three other persons as P.W.1 to P.W.4 respectively and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The sixth respondent herein, who is the owner of the offending vehicle TATA ACE bearing Registration No.TN 57 AD 0156, had remained ex-parte. On the side of the Appellant/Insurer, they have summoned and examined a staff attached to the Regional Transport Office, Dindigul, as R.W.1 and exhibited one document as Ex.R.1, two witness documents through R.W.1 as Ex.W.2 and Ex.W.3 respectively.

4. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the TATA ACE driver was responsible for the accident and consequently, mulcted liability on the Appellant/Insurer directing them to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurer has preferred the present appeal.

5. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the tribunal erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,750/-, when the claimants have failed to produce any evidence to show the income of the deceased derived from the Hotel allegedly run by the deceased?

(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal is proper and is in accordance with law?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.18,750/- per month in the absence of any valid material documents or evidence, that the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, that the document Ex.P.7 produced by the claimants are not relevant to determine the income of the deceased and that the total compensation awarded at Rs.30,00,000/- is highly excessive and the same is liable to be interfered with.

7. The case of the claimants is that the deceased Manikandan was running a Hotel in the name of Muniyandi Vilaas at Palayam and that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The first claimant/P.W.1 in her cross examination would say that they have not produced any documents to show that her husband was running the Muniyadi Vilaas at Palayam in Kujiliamparai and that she has not produced any receipts for the period prior to 2011-2012. The claimants have produced and exhibited the receipts for payment of professional tax under Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 for the period 2011-2012 and 2013-2013 respectively and the receipts for payment of license fee to Palayam Panchayat under Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.12.

8. The claimants have summoned and examined the Executive Officer Thiru.Mathiyas as P.W.2 and he would depose about the receipts issued under Ex.P.7, and Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11. During cross examination, he would admit that they are not having the original or copy of the receipts issued prior to 2010, that he does not know about the income derived from the Muniyandi Vilaas Hotel, that no docume