Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.03.2005 made in MCOP Nos.95 of 2001 and 96 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sankagiri. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 16.03.2000 at 5.00 p.m., the claimant Sheela in CMA No.1845 of 2007 along with her husband Moorthy @ Krishnamoorthy, were going to a condolence at Salem in a Yamaha Motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP 04 R 7003. On the way to Salem near Avarangampalayam Aircel Tower, a TCM Toyota Van bearing Registration No.TN 37 G 0291 came from the opposite side and dashed against the Yamaha Motorcycle, due to which, the said Krishnamoorthy along with Sheela fell down on the road. Both of them sustained grievous injuries all over their body. Immediately they were admitted in the Government Hospital at Sankari. Later, they were referred to Erode Govt. Hospital. On the way to Erode, the said Krishnamoorthy died. MCOP No.95 of 2001 (CMA No.1845 of 2007) was filed by the wife of the deceased on the ground that she sustained injuries, wherein a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-was claimed. MCOP No.96 of 2001 (CMA No.1846 of 2007) was filed by the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased, wherein a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-was claimed. The appellants / State resisted the claims. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver or not? b) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation or not? 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 van driver belonging to the appellants / State and awarded a compensation of Rs.63,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.95 of 2001 (CMA No.1845 of 2007) and Rs.6,97,500/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in MCOP No.96 of 2001 (CMA No.1846 of 2007). Aggrieved by the awards, the appellants / State have filed the present appeals. 3. Learned Govt. Aggrieved by the awards, the appellants / State have filed the present appeals. 3. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellants / State submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver belonging to the State. It is also submitted that the Tribunal had awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification in both these appeals and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation in both these appeals. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 were marked. On the side of the State, witness R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. R.W.1 is one Annamalai. Ex.P1 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P4 is the copy of Discharge Summary. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report for the Yamaha Motorcycle. Ex.P7 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report for the Toyota van. Ex.P8 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.P9 is the Hospital Bill. Ex.P10 is the series of Medical bills. Ex.P11 is the series of medical prescriptions. Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 are the certificates for having completed the degree in Beautician Course. Ex.P14 is the Professional Tax Receipt. Ex.P15 is the Driving Licence. Ex.P16 is the letter of the deceased regarding his eagerness in the art of painting. Ex.P17 is the copy of Legal Heir Certificate. From Ex.P1, the First Information Report, it is very clear that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the van belonging to the State. The driver of the van was also charge-sheeted, which is Ex.P8. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report for the Yamaha Motorcycle. Ex.P7 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report for the Toyota van. The driver of the van was also charge-sheeted, which is Ex.P8. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report for the Yamaha Motorcycle. Ex.P7 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report for the Toyota van. From these evidence, it is clear that both the vehicles not suffered from any mechanical defect. After considering these evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver belonging to the State and awarded a compensation of Rs.63,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.95 of 2001 (CMA No.1845 of 2007) and Rs.6,97,500/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition in MCOP No.96 of 2001 (CMA No.1846 of 2007). The details of the compensation are as under:- MCOP No.95 of 2001 (CMA No.1845 of 2007):- Rupees Pain and suffering 20,000/- Transport expenses 1,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period 10,000/- Medical expenses 32,000/- Total... 63,000/- ============== MCOP No.96 of 2001 (CMA No.1846 of 2007):- Rupees Loss of income 6,48,000/-Funeral expenses 5,000/-Transport expenses 1,500/-Damage to articles 3,000/- Loss of consortium 10,000/-Loss of love and affection 30,000/- Total... 6,97,500/-============== 6. CMA No.1845 of 2007 (MCOP No.95 of 2001):- The claimant, wife of the deceased, sustained grievous injuries all over the body and she was 21 years at the time of accident. The claimant stated that she was treated at C.K.Hospital, Erode for a period of one month. Further, she claimed that she was running Beauty Parlour and was earning Rs.5,000/-per month and because of the accident, she is unable to carry on the daily work. Ex.P3 is the copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P4 is the copy of Discharge Summary. Ex.P9 is the Hospital Bill. Ex.P10 is the series of Medical bills. Considering all these evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant suffered only simple injuries and awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses, which are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period. No evidence was produced by the claimant that she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from Beauty Parlour. In the claim petition, it is stated that the claimant is a house-wife. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period. No evidence was produced by the claimant that she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from Beauty Parlour. In the claim petition, it is stated that the claimant is a house-wife. Taking into consideration of the claim petition and also in the absence of any valid evidence that she was running a Beauty Parlour, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during the treatment period at Rs.10,000/- is without basis and justification and hence the same is set aside. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/-towards medical expenses based on Ex.P9-Hospital Bill, Ex.P10-series of Medical bills and Ex.P11-series of medical prescriptions. It is an actual expenditure and hence the same is confirmed. Therefore, the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Rupees Pain and suffering 20,000/- Transport expenses 1,000/- Medical expenses 32,000/- Total... 53,000/- ============== Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.53,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.63,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed as the same was the prevailing rate at that time. Accordingly, CMA No.1845 of 2007 is partly allowed. The appellants / State is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.53,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit. 7. CMA No.1846 of 2007 (MCOP No.96 of 2001):- The claimants are the wife, minor son and the mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of accident. The claimants claimed that the deceased was running hotel business and lorry transport business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants filed Ex.P14 which is the Professional Tax Receipt. Ex.P15 is the Driving Licence. The deceased was also an artist. Ex.P16 is the letter of the deceased regarding his eagerness in the art of painting. There is no evidence produced to show that the deceased was running transport business. In the absence of proper evidence the Tribunal fixed the minimum income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Ex.P15 is the Driving Licence. The deceased was also an artist. Ex.P16 is the letter of the deceased regarding his eagerness in the art of painting. There is no evidence produced to show that the deceased was running transport business. In the absence of proper evidence the Tribunal fixed the minimum income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. From that, 1/3rd of the amount was deducted and the balance sum of Rs.3,000/- was taken as the deceaseds contribution to the family. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined the annual loss of income at Rs.36,000/-. The age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal adopted 18 multiplier and determined the total loss of income at Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.36,000/-x 18). The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly income as well as annual income. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has also adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the loss of income at Rs.6,48,000/-is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,500/- towards transport expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards damage to articles, which are very reasonable and hence they are 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., 21 years at the time of accident, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration of the widow, minor son and the aged mother, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed as the same was the prevailing rate at that time. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,97,500/-with interest at 9% from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No.1846 of 2007 is dismissed. The appellants / State is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,97,500/-with 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the first and third respondents are permitted to withdraw their entire share from the deposit. Accordingly, CMA No.1846 of 2007 is dismissed. The appellants / State is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,97,500/-with 9% interest p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the first and third respondents are permitted to withdraw their entire share from the deposit. Since the second respondent is a minor, the share of the minor 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 minor attains majority. The guardian of the minor, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months. 8. Accordingly, CMA No.1845 of 2007 is partly allowed and CMA No.1846 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.3 and 4 in CMA Nos.1845 and 1846 of 2007 are closed. No costs.