Service benefits such as family pension and compassionate appointments cannot negate a claim for future prospects in accident compensation. Furthermore, medical expenses require verified documentation, and income tax must be deducted from the deceased's income when calculating total loss of dependency.

(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.K.RAJASEKAR,J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P. No.228 of 2019, dated 23.06.2023, on the file of the District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein according to their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3.On 27.08.2019, at about 10:00 P.M., while the deceased M.R.Chandramohan was returning from Indian Bank, Vedharaniyam Branch towards East Coast Road, Sellur Village by riding a Mahindra Motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-02-P-8248, while he reached near Amirtha School, a Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-18-AB-8129 came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained head injuries on his right side, right upper limp, right foot with multiple fracture, left upper abdomen, left upper chest and other injuries and aberration all over his body. Immediately he was taken to the Hospital, for treatment. Inspite of various treatment, the injured died on 30.08.2019 at 9.00 P.M., due to multiple blunt injuries sustained by him in the accident. In this regard, a complaint was lodged at Nagore Police Station, Nagore registered in Crime No.297/2019 under Sections 279, 337 IPC @ 279, 304-A of IPC. For the loss of deceased M.R.Chandramohan, the claimants, who are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased filed this Claim Petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4.The first and the second respondents, who are the driver and owner of the offending Motorcycle has not contested the claim before the Tribunal. The third respondent - Insurance Company filed a counter and contended that the first respondent has driven the motorcycle with due care and caution and the accident was taken place only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased. The Insurance Company also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and further contended that the compensation claimed under various heads are on the higher side, hence prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.25 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R1 and Ex.R10 were marked.

6.Based on the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal in Point No.1, has held that the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-18-AB-8129 is responsible for the accident. In Point No.2, the Tribunal held that the third respondent shall pay the compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and thereafter they are permitted to recover the same from the second respondent/owner of the motorcycle. In Point No.3, the Tribunal has quantified and granted compensation for a sum of Rs.69,23,807/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization. 7.Aggrieved over the award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the son of the deceased had been granted appointment on compassionate grounds and his wife is