JUDGMENT : The shorts facts of the case are as follows:-The respondents herein/claimants have filed M.C.T.O.P.No.302 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-28-J-2639 stating that on 26.12.2007, at about 5 p.m., when the first claimant's husband, viz., Karupannan was walking on the Mohanur Main Road, on his left side, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-28-J-2639 coming from the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against him. As a result, the (deceased) Karupannan had sustained multiple injuries and he was rushed to a private hospital, wherein, he had expired after 10 days despite providing best treatment. Hence, the claimants have sought compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. 2. The second respondent/Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident had been committed by the rider of the motorcycle in a negligent manner. The deceased had not expired due to injuries sustained by him. The respondent further stated that they had gathered information through private agency regarding the manner of accident and it disclosed that the deceased had suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming motorcycle and as such, he had invited the accident. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was submitted that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid driving licence and the claimants are not depending on the income of the deceased. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, viz., "(i) Whether the rider of the motorcycle had caused the said accident in a rash and negligent manner? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, from whom they are entitled to receive compensation?" 4. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and 14 documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., postmortem report, motor vehicle inspector's report, charge sheet, rough sketch, medical bills, death certificate, legal-heir certificate, documentary proof showing that the deceased was the Secretary of Sengalikavunoor Milk Co-operative Society, daily milk selling particulars and weekly milk selling particulars, sale deed and patta of the deceased. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the deceased was his father and that when he was walking on the Mohanur Main Road, on 26.12.2007, at around 5 p.m., the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-28-J-2639 had been ridden by its rider from the opposite direction at high speed and in reckless manner and dashed against his father. P.W.1 further stated that his father had sustained multiple injuries all over his body and especially on his chest. Immediately he was admitted in Kumaran Private Hospital, Namakkal, wherein he had expired on 07.01.2008. P.W.1 further stated that his father's age was 50 years at the time of accident and that his father was selling both cow and buffalo milk and earning Rs.25,000/- to about Rs.34,000/- per month. The first claimant is his mother and the third claimant is his sister and the fourth claimant is the aged mother of the deceased. He had spent a sum of Rs.53,765/-towards medical expenses. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 further stated that his father is maintaining 25 milk cows and besides this, he was doing cultivation of agricultural land for an extent of 3 acres in which, there is irrigation facilities. 6. P.W.3 had adduced evidence that the milk society was established on 20.01.2007. The deceased Karupannan was a member in the Society and he was supplying both cow and buffalo milk i.e., 80 liters per day and as such, this earning amounted to Rs.25,000/-per month. P.W.2 had adduced evidence that he had witnessed the said accident and had also spoken about the manner of accident. 7. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimants and on hearing the arguments from the highly competent counsels on both sides, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.18,43,765/- as compensation, which consists of loss of earning, loss love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and medical expenses, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. Against the said award and decree, the New India Assurance Company has filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.2173 of 2009 and challenged the said award on both grounds quantum and negligence. 9. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants had filed cross objection No.150 of 2011 and have sought additional compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. 10. 8. Against the said award and decree, the New India Assurance Company has filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.2173 of 2009 and challenged the said award on both grounds quantum and negligence. 9. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants had filed cross objection No.150 of 2011 and have sought additional compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. 10. The highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.18,43,765/-as compensation for the death of a man aged about 51 years, who was allegedly running a milk dairy farm. Actually, there was no authorized documents for income proof. He further submits that the Tribunal had erroneously accepted that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-per month without deducting the expenses for maintenance of the milk dairy. The claimants income have not been affected or reduced since the claimants 1 to 3 are capable to do the same milk business. Therefore, the award of Rs.17,60,000/- passed by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of earnings' is not appropriate in the instant case. Besides all the claimants are not depending on the income of the deceased. The very competent counsel further contended that the deceased had suddenly crossed the Mohanur Main Road, without noticing the motorcycle that came in the opposite direction. Therefore, the negligence has to be attributed on the side of the deceased as well and this was not considered by the Tribunal. The claimants had marked Exs.P10 and P11 regarding milk vending showing the quantity of sale transactions. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the award. 11. The very competent counsel for the claimants argued that the age of the deceased was 50 years and he was maintaining a cattle farm including 25 milk cows and buffaloes. Besides, the (deceased) Karuppannan had 3 acres of farm and agricultural land used for grazing the milk animals and therefore, no expenses had been incurred for the maintenance of cattle. The claimants have produced documentary evidence regarding three acres of agricultural land and milk vending particulars regarding quantity of milk supplied by the deceased per day i.e., 80 liters to the milk society and earning Rs.25,000/- minimum per month. The payment particulars had been furnished by P.W.3, who is the Secretary of the Milk Society and he is the authorized person. The income of the deceased was proved through documentary proof. The payment particulars had been furnished by P.W.3, who is the Secretary of the Milk Society and he is the authorized person. The income of the deceased was proved through documentary proof. The milk society is maintaining payment particulars in which, the deceased was listed as serial No.127 and it was clearly disclosed that the income of the deceased was an authentic one. The milk society had issued cash receipts for monthly and weekly payments and besides, the deceased was earning considerable income through land cultivation which was not considered by the Tribunal. After the accident, the deceased underwent medical treatment at a private hospital at Namakkal and at another private hospital at Perundurai for about 12 days, therefore, the transport expenditure was incurred as well as attender charges. Hence, the highly competent counsel is seeking additional compensation for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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, liability and quantum of compensation. It is evident that the F.I.R. and charge sheet had been levelled against the rider of the offending vehicle. Besides the scene of occurrence revealed through scrutiny of rough sketch clearly shows that the rider of the motorcycle had been entirely negligent in causing the accident. The offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. As per the postmortem report, the deceased age was 51 years at the time of accident and he was engaged in the milk vending business as well as land cultivation. It is evident through scrutiny of Exs.P10 and P11 and P12 that the deceased was supplying milk to the tune of 50 liters per day approximately to the milk society. The milk society paid on monthly basis ranging from Rs.26,084/- to Rs.34,069/-. Therefore, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/-per month, out of which 1/3 had been deducted and the compensation was assessed in an appropriate manner under the head of 'loss of earning' as the claimants are four in numbers. The rest of the compensation awarded under the heads of medical expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are also reasonable. The rest of the compensation awarded under the heads of medical expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are also reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation. 13. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court had directed the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount. Now, this Court directs the appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited, to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, as per the Tribunal order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. After such deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.302 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, after filing a Memo/short note along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any, made by the claimants. 15. In the result, the above appeal in C.M.A.No.2173 of 2009 filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited as well as the Cross Objection in Cross.Obj.No.150 of 2011 filed by the claimants are dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.302 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Namakkal, dated 21.11.2008 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.