JUDGMENT :

R.Subbiah, J.

The appeal is heard through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company as against the award dated 30.10.2018 made in MCOP.No. 501 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Judge, Tiruppur questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 6 herein, who are the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased Palanisamy. It is the case of the claimants that on 17.11.2015 at about 10.20 a.m. the deceased was riding a Moped bearing Registration No.TN-33-AX-4932 on the left side of the Uthukuli to Tiruppur Road. While he was nearing Krishna Nagar Koolipalayam Nall Road, a Tata ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-30-AH-5913, owned by the seventh respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the Moped. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous head and facial injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in a Private Hospital, where he took treatment from 17.11.2015 to 19.11.2015. Thereafter, he was shifted to KMCH, Coimbatore on 19.11.2015. In spite of the treatment given to him, he died on 30.11.2015.

5. The further case of the claimants is that at the time of the accident, the deceased was doing milk and butter business in the name of Subashree Dairy Farm and also doing manufacturing job work of Hosiery Goods to SRV Knit Garments, Tiruppur. Apart from that, he was doing agricultural operations. Thus, he was earning not less than Rs.40,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants made a claim for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

6. The said claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a counter denying the manner of accident 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.

7. In order to prove the income on the side of the claimants, the first claimant/wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1, along with two other witnesses as PW2 & PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither any oral evidence was adduced nor documents were marked.

8. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver-cum-owner of the Tata ACE vehicle with Registration No.TN-30-AH-5913 insured with the Insurance Company and awarded a total compensation of Rs.38,03,657/-. The breakup details of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:

The actual total compensation comes to Rs.38,03,657/-. However, the Tribunal has erroneously arrived the amount at Rs.38,03,613/-.

9. Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, before the Tribunal, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was doing milk and butter business in the name of Subashree Dairy Farm, manufacturing job work of Hosiery Goods to SRV Knit Garments, Tiruppur and also doing agricultural operations and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. But absolutely, no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants to show that the deceased was earning income through the above businesses. Even assuming that the above businesses were run by the deceased, the said businesses would be also available to the family after his demise. The claimants also did not produce any