JUDGMENT :

R. THARANI, J.

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 105 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 105 of 2013 dated 25.03.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil.

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 105 of 2013, claiming compensation for the death of one Suyambulingam, in an accident that took place on 07.08.2012. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,74,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Seventy Four Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 105 of 2013 is as follows:

On 07.08.2012, at about 02.30 p.m. the deceased was riding his bicycle along the Kanyakumari-Nagercoil National Highways near Palpanabhanputhoor, keeping the left edge of the road. At that time, a maruti omni van bearing Registration No. KL-01-Y-9257 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased from backside. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. The claimants are his dependants and they claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent herein is as follows:

The driver of the omni drove the van in a slow and cautious manner observing the road rules. It was the deceased, who suddenly dashed against the maruti van and then dashed against an electric post. The deceased invited the accident. The vehicle was insured with the third respondent and the third respondent is liable to pay compensation and the petition has to be dismissed as against the second respondent.

5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent herein is as follows:

The date, income and profession of the deceased are all denied. The first respondent is not responsible for the accident. It was the deceased, who crossed the road without observing the traffic and he invited the accident. The policy conditions are violated. The driver and the insurer of the vehicle failed to inform the insurance company about the accident. The claim is excessive.

6. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked. On the side respondents in the claim petition, no witness was examined and one document was marked. After considering both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,74,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Seven Four Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the age of the deceased is only 43 years at the time of accident. Instead of relying on the post morterm certificate, the Tribunal relied on the copy of the ration card, which is not reasonable. The Tribunal deducted 1/3th of the income for the own expenses of the deceased. The dependants were four persons and the Tribunal ought to have reduced 1/4th of the income. The Tribunal failed to apply future prospects in calculating loss of income. The Tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income as Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month and the same is to be enhanced as Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) has to be awarded. The insurance company did not file any appeal.

8. On the basis of Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5, it is decided that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the omni car. The age of the deceased was fixed as 46 years on the basis of Ex.R1, copy of th