JUDGMENT :- 1. The appellants / claimants have filed M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2003, against the respondents herein stating that when the 1st claimant namely Durai was walking on the left side of Perundurai Main Road on 03.05.2000, at about 7.15 p.m., the 1st respondent had ridden the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TCQ-3498 from the opposite direction and dashed against him. Hence, the 1st claimant had sustained grievous injuries and after a prolonged medical treatment, succumbed to his injuries on 08.08.2001. Hence, the legal heir of the deceased had proceeded with the case against the respondents herein and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, but the Tribunal had granted compensation of a sum of Rs.22,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the above appeal and have sought additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said claim petition had been resisted by the New India Assurance Company Limited, after filing counter statement. The respondent had denied the averments in the claim that the accident had been committed by the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TCQ-3498 and that it had dashed against the 1st claimant. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of medical treatment, age of 1st claimant and occupation was also not admitted. Hence, the respondent had entreated the trial Court to dismiss the claim petition. 3. On verifying the averments made by both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the rider of the motorcycle had committed the said accident by his rash and negligent riding? and (2) What is the quantum of compensation the claimants are entitled to get? 34. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The claimants have marked 10 documents namely, Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Observation mahazar; Ex.P3-Rough sketch; Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P5-Wound Certificate; Ex.P6-Charge sheet; Ex.P7-Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P8-Medical Certificate issued by Priya Hospital; Ex.P9-Disability Certificate; and Ex.P10-X-ray. On the side of the claimants, the 2nd claimant was examined as PW 1 and the Doctor was examined as PW2. PW 1 had adduced evidence that the 1st claimant Durai was her husband and the 3rd and 4th claimants are the children of the 2nd claimant and the 5th claimant is the mother of the 1st claimant (deceased). On the side of the claimants, the 2nd claimant was examined as PW 1 and the Doctor was examined as PW2. PW 1 had adduced evidence that the 1st claimant Durai was her husband and the 3rd and 4th claimants are the children of the 2nd claimant and the 5th claimant is the mother of the 1st claimant (deceased). She further stated that on 03.05.2000 at about 07.15 p.m., when her husband was proceeding on the Perundurai Main Road, on his left side, the 1st respondent had driven the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TCQ-3498, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against her husband. Her husband was rushed to the Priya Hospital, Perundurai, wherein he received treatment as an inpatient for a period of 10 months, but in spite of treatment he expired on 08.08.2001, due to kidney failure, which had resulted due to injuries in the said accident. Supporting her evidence, she had marked the above mentioned documents. She further stated that her husband had sustained grievous injuries on his spinal cord and as a result, he had become immobilised. PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the 1st claimant i.e. deceased Durai had been hospitalized from 03.05.2000 to 13.11.2000 as inpatient and both his legs had become dysfunctional and that his kidney had also been affected due to injuries sustained in his nervous system. 5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on verifying the documents marked by the claimants and after hearing the arguments of the highly competent counsel on either side, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.22,400/- as compensation, which was granted only for medical expenses. 6. Not being satisfied by the said compensation amount, the claimants have filed the above appeal for additional compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The very competent counsel contended that the 1st claimant namely deceased Durai had been hospitalised for a period of 11 months as inpatient. The claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his spinal card and both his legs. Besides this, the muscles on his legs have been crushed and his kidney had been seriously affected. These injuries led to the death of the 1st claimant. The claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his spinal card and both his legs. Besides this, the muscles on his legs have been crushed and his kidney had been seriously affected. These injuries led to the death of the 1st claimant. Therefore, all the claimants are entitled to get the originally claimed compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- since it was a fatal case and the age of the deceased was 34 years and he was a driver by profession. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are minors and all the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased Durai, who was the breadwinner of the family. 7. The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the date of accident was 03.05.2000 and the claimant had expired on 08.08.2001 after a period of 15 months. Initially, the claimant had undergone treatment at a hospital and after restoration of his health, he had been discharged. Thereafter, his death was a natural one and not caused due to the said accident. The very competent counsel further contended that no postmortem certificate was marked and there was no nexus to prove that the 1st claimant Durai had expired due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Without documentary proof, the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation from the Insurance Company. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.22,400/- towards medical expenses on the strength of medical bills produced by the claimants which had been certified by Priya Hospital. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal, since there is no lacuna in the impugned award. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants vehemently pointed out that PW 2 is a qualified Doctor and he had adduced evidence that the claimant's spinal cord had been damaged and he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries in both his legs and the muscles had been crushed. The Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimants nervous system had been totally damaged and as such this had resulted in kidney failure, even after good treatment. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the head of loss of earning, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, transport, etc. 9. The Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimants nervous system had been totally damaged and as such this had resulted in kidney failure, even after good treatment. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the head of loss of earning, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, transport, etc. 9. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.22,400/-awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses is not sufficient. This Court's further view is that the claimant had not produced postmortem certificate. However, it is evident on scrutiny of Doctor evidence that the deceased Durai had undergone medical treatment as inpatient for more than six months such prolonged treatment evidently shows that the claimant had sustained major injuries in the accident. Now, the claimants have sought a sum of rs.1,00,000/-as compensation. This Court grants the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as it is found to be reasonable. The said compensation consists of award of Rs.30,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.40,000/- towards attender charges; and Rs.30,000/- towards nutrition as the 1st claimant i.e. (deceased) Durai had undergone treatment as inpatient as well as outpatient from the date of accident till date of his death. Until his death it is seen that all the claimants had extended their physical help taking care of him. The said compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Therefore, this Court directs the 3rd respondent herein / New India Assurance Company Limited to pay the said compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to each of the claimants to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the above appeal is allowed. 11. In the result, the above appeal is allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, dated 19.01.2004, is modified. No costs.