Judgment :- 1. The appellants/respondents have preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1602 of 2010, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.228 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.2, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioners, who are the parents and brothers of the deceased Sitthanathan, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.228 of 2009, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of of the said Sitthanathan, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 08.12.2008, at about 09.30 a.m., when the (deceased) Sitthanadhan was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-05R-9973, near the Valasamuthiram Bus stop and proceeding from west towards east on the extreme left of the road, the 1st respondents lorry bearing registration No.KL-08G-0824, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the (deceased) Sithananthan. In the impact, the (deceased) Sithananthan sustained injuries and was admitted at the Thoothukudi Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given. Subsequently, he was admitted at AVM Hospital, Thoothukudi, as an inpatient, for further treatment, but inspite of medical treatment being given to him, he died on the same day. At the time of accident, the (deceased) was aged 24 years and was working as a sales leader at "Airtel" and earning Rs.10,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioners, who are the dependants on the income of the deceased have filed the above claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KL-08G-0824. 3. The 1st respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased as well as the manner of accident. It was submitted that the accident was not caused by the negligence of the 1st respondent's driver, as alleged in the claim and that it was caused only due to the negligence of the deceased Sithanathan. It was submitted that as the 1st respondent's lorry had been insured with the 2nd respondent, at the time of accident, only the 2nd respondent could be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 4. The 2nd respondent in his counter has submitted that the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 4. The 2nd respondent in his counter has submitted that the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that as the (deceased) Sithanathan was a bachelor, the compensation, if any assessed by the Tribunal should be calculated on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry?; (2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation which they are entitled to get?. 6. On the petitioner's side, three witnesses were examined and seventeen documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 08.12.2008; Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report dated 13.12.2008; Ex.P3-Copy of charge sheet dated 03.01.2009; Ex.P4-copy of post mortem report dated 09.12.2008; Ex.P5-driving licence of Sithanathan; Ex.P6-ID card of Sithanathan; Ex.P7-permanent income tax card ; Ex.P8-salary certificate dated 04.08.2009; Ex.P9-Doctor's Prescriptions (series); Ex.P10-Medical bills and receipts (series); Ex.P11-computer Diploma certificate issued to Sithanathan; Ex.P12-B.Com Mark sheet of Sithanathan; Ex.P13-death certificate of Sithanathan dated 02.01.2009; Ex.P14-legal heir certificate; Ex.P15-Authorization letter issued by Airtel dated 27.04.2010; Ex.P16-copy of attendance register of Airtel and Ex.P17-salary vouchers of Sithanathan (series). On the respondents side, no witness, no documents. 7. PW.1, the father of the deceased had adduced evidence that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's lorry driver. On cross examination, he had admitted that he had not seen the accident. 8. PW.2, Anandakumar, the eyewitness of the accident had adduced evidence that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's lorry driver. On cross examination, he had admitted that the deceased was his uncle's son. He further deposed that he was standing at the bus stop, when the accident took place and had denied the suggestion put forward by the respondents side that he had given false evidence only because the deceased was his uncle's son. 9. On cross examination, he had admitted that the deceased was his uncle's son. He further deposed that he was standing at the bus stop, when the accident took place and had denied the suggestion put forward by the respondents side that he had given false evidence only because the deceased was his uncle's son. 9. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the front right side of the lorry and the front lamp of the lorry had been damaged and that the accident had not been caused due to any machanical defects in the lorry. On scrutiny of charge sheet, it is observed that the driver of the lorry had been charge sheeted and that he had been guilty of negligence. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the (deceased) Sithanathan had a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle's. The Tribunal, on observing that the respondents had not taken any steps to examine the driver of the lorry to rebut the evidence laid down on the petitioner's side as regards manner of accident and on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's lorry driver. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P2, held that the driver of the lorry had a valid driving licence and that the lorry was covered under a policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Exs.P1,p3, P4 and P13, the Tribunal held that the deceased had died only due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 10. On scrutiny of exhibits P14, legal heir certificate, it is seen that the 3rd and 4th petitioners, who are the brothers of the (deceased) Sithanathan are aged 27 years and 22 years respectively and that they are not dependently on the income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal held that only 1st and 2nd petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Sithanathan and entitled to get compensation. 11. PW.3, Siman Raja, had adduced evidence that the (deceased) Sithanathan had worked as a salesman in their firm and that he was employed as the team leader. On cross examination, he had stated that he had not brought any documents to show the occupation and income of the deceased. 11. PW.3, Siman Raja, had adduced evidence that the (deceased) Sithanathan had worked as a salesman in their firm and that he was employed as the team leader. On cross examination, he had stated that he had not brought any documents to show the occupation and income of the deceased. He further deposed that he would again appear before Court and produced the salary vouchers of the deceased. On scrutiny of exhibits marked as P6, P7, P8, P11, P12 and P17, the Tribunal held that the (deceased) Sithanathan was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- prior to the accident. 12. Hence, the Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- under the head of loss of income and loss of estate as per schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.8,800/-for medical expenses, as per Ex.P10, medical bills. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,93,800/- as compensation to the 1st and 2nd petitioners and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order. 13. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 1st and 2nd respondents have preferred the present appeal. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the documents produced by the claimants in support of the monthly income of the deceased are dubious and doubtful in nature and the signature in exhibits P6 and P7 differ from each other and the signatures of the deceased in the alleged register are also not similar and hence the Tribunal ought not have to have believed the same as true and genuine to decide the question of assessment of compensation. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the deceased was working as a team leader only and there is no independent evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased and the documents relied upon by the claimants are not reliable enough to assess the loss of income as claimed by the claimants. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the deceased was working as a team leader only and there is no independent evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased and the documents relied upon by the claimants are not reliable enough to assess the loss of income as claimed by the claimants. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the deceased was a bachelor and that only the parents of the deceased were dependent upon his income and so the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from the salary of the deceased as personal expenses and the failure and omission of the Tribunal to do so is not fair and acceptable. It was contended that the Tribunal ought not to have granted such a huge sum for loss of future income without concrete proof of monthly income and hence it was prayed to set aside the findings of the Tribunal and slash down the quantum of compensation considerably by about Rs.4,00,000/-. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased was aged about 24 years and he was a sales team leader employed with "Airtel", Thoothukudi and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was a B.Com graduate and also a Diploma holder in computers. Further, the deceased had contributed the maximum income to the family and the 3rd and 4th claimants are brothers of the deceased, who were also depending on the income of the deceased and are unmarried persons. 15. 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 is of the view that the deceased income was not properly classified under the head of gross salary and net salary. Further, the accident took place in the month of December but the claimants had marked the salary receipts for the month of May and June. As per receipts, the income of the deceased has been shown as Rs.4,194/-. However, this Court, on considering the age and employment and qualification of the deceased holds that the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. As per receipts, the income of the deceased has been shown as Rs.4,194/-. However, this Court, on considering the age and employment and qualification of the deceased holds that the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the age of the mother of the deceased i.e., 48 years, this Court adopts a multiplier of "15" and awards a compensation of Rs.5,40,000/-(Rs.6,000x1/2x12x15) under the head of loss of income; Rs.40,000/- is awarded to 1st and 2nd claimants under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses; Rs.8,800/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/-towards transport expenses and Rs.1,40,000/-towards loss of estates. In total, this Court awards a total compensation of a sum of Rs.7,48,800/-. Hence, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.9,93,800/- to Rs.7,48,800/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 16. This Court directs the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company, to deposit the entire compensation amount, as per this Court order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after deducting earlier payments made by the Insurance Company as per this Courts order. After such a deposit has been made, it is open to the 1st and 2nd claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount equally, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.228 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No. II, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any, as per this Court's earlier order. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.228 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No. II, Tirunelveli, is modified, dated 09.07.2010, No costs.