JUDGMENT :

R.Subbiah, J.

The appeal is heard through video conferencing.

2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Jude, Erode in MCOP. No. 449 of 2017 dated 19.12.2018, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

3. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are the wife, sons and parents of the deceased Mohanranjan. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 26.12.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., while the deceased Mohanranjan was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 34 H 2334 on Kandasamy Street, near Style Walk in Erode, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 41 Q 2226, belonging to the sixth respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle driven by the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and the Lorry ran over the hip of the deceased. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Erode, but, he was declared brought dead.

4. It is the further case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased was running a Textile Business, doing agriculture on his own land and also working as an operator in Cinema Theater and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants not only lost the income of the deceased, but also his love and affection and guidance. Hence, they made a claim for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant/Insurance Company by filing a counter statement denying the manner of accident as projected by the claimants in the claim petition. They also denied the avocation and income mentioned in the claim petition. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the claimants, the first claimant/wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1, besides examining Karthik Janardhanan, an eyewitness to the accident as PW2 and one Rajagopalan as PW3 and exhibits Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor document was marked.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 41 Q 2226. By coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal, passed an award for a sum of Rs.25,85,000/- as compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay the above compensation. The break-up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are as follows:

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that on a perusal of Exs.P22 & P23, it could be seen that along with the deceased, his 2 sons/respondents 2 and 3 were employed as partners in the Textile Business and the profit was shared between them in the ratio of 50% to the deceased and the balance 50% to his sons. The profit earned by them for the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 are Rs.1,294.50 and Rs.3,471.50 respectively. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. Instead of doing so, an exorbitant sum of Rs.25,000/- was fixed as monthly income of the deceased, which ultimately resulted in awarding an excessive sum of Rs.24,20,000/- under