Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP No.588 of 2005, dated 27.03.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 09.07.2003 at about 9.30 p.m., one Venkatesan was riding the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-33-R-3022 along with one Subramani as pillion rider, proceeding from Chikkarasampalayam to Sathyamangalam in the Sathy-Mysore National Highways from west to east direction. When they were reaching near Udayamarathittu Vinayagar Koil, the rider of the vehicle suddenly applied the brake. Due to the same, the pillion rider Subramani was thrown away from the vehicle and his head dashed against the footsteps of the said Vinayagar Koil and he sustained severe head injuries and also injuries all over the body. Immediately he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam. Later he was shifted to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore and treated as in-patient and he died at about 11.25 a.m. on 10.07.2003. The claimants are the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle or not? b) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,11,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle and also the deceased was a pillion rider and that therefore, the Tribunal is not liable to pay any compensation. Further it is alternatively contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Further it is alternatively contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Subramaniam. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.P3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the copy of rough sketch. Ex.P5 is the copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P6 is the copy of judgment of Criminal Court. Ex.P7 is the copy of Death Certificate. Ex.P8 is the Legal Heir Certificate. After considering these materials and evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,11,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 3,84,000/- Loss of consortium 10,000/- Loss of love and affection 15,000/- Funeral expenses 2,000/- Total... 4,11,000/- =========== .5. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, who deposed that on 09.07.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., one Venkatesan was riding the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-33-R-3022 along with her husband Subramani as pillion rider, proceeding from Chikkarasampalayam to Sathyamangalam in the Sathy-Mysore National Highways from west to east direction. When they were reaching near Udayamarathittu Vinayagar Koil, the rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied the brake. Due to the same, the pillion rider Subramani was thrown away from the vehicle and he sustained severe head injuries and also injuries all over the body and in spite of giving treatment, the deceased died on 10.07.2003 in the hospital. P.W.2 is one Subramaniam, who is the independent eye witness. P.W.2 deposed that when he came to Sathyamangalam Bus Stop and was proceeding near the said Vinayagar Temple, the said motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-33-R-3022 driven by one Venkatesan along with the deceased Subramani, pillion rider, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the speed-breaker. Due to the same, the Pillion Rider fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and also injuries all over the body. Due to the same, the Pillion Rider fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and also injuries all over the body. He also deposed that the deceased was taken to the hospital, but he died in the hospital on 10.07.2003. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that it was the rider of the motorcycle who came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and suddenly applied the brake and as a result of the same, the deceased was thrown out and sustained injuries and died later. Regarding the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant in respect of validity of licence, there is no evidence available on record to substantiate the case and further the plea is raised first time before the Court, which is without basis and justification. .6. Ex.P5 is the Post Mortem Report, in which it was stated that the deceased was 39 years old. The claimants stated that the deceased was running a Bakery and a Tea Shop and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. But no documentary evidence adduced to substantiate the claim. Hence the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned Rs.100/- per day and determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived at an amount of Rs.2,000/- and determined the annual income at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/-x 12). The age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of accident. Hence the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and determined the loss of income at Rs.3,84,000/-(Rs.24,000/- x 16). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly determined the daily, monthly as well as the annual income and adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income at Rs.3,84,000/-is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, i.e., 30 years, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, i.e., 30 years, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration of the two minor children and the widow, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.15,000/-towards loss of love and affection and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The findings of the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,11,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs. 8. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.4,11,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, respondents 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share. The shares of the minors / respondents 2 and 3, shall be invested in any nationalised bank proximate to the place of the resident of the minors guardian, the first respondent, for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minors attain majority. The guardian of the minors, the first respondent, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months.