JUDGMENT : R. Mahadevan, J. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V), Chennai in M.C.O.P. No. 3710 of 2001. The cross-objection has been filed by the claimants seeking an enhancement. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their rank in the original petition. 3. Initially, the claim petition was filed by Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident that occurred on 20.7.2001. The claim petition was filed on 26.7.2001 and during the pendency of the claim petition, Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh passed away due to complications of the injuries. The legal heirs were impleaded and the claim petition was amended and the claim was altered to Rs. 8,00,000. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,30,000 with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Aggrieved, the appeal has been filed by the insurance company and the cross-objections have been filed by the claimants for enhancement. 4. The negligence and validity of insurance policy are not in dispute. 5. Heard the counsel for the respondent insurance company and the counsel for the claimants. The respondent No. 1 has not entered his appearance before this court. The records were called for from the Tribunal and examined. 6. The counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 2, has assailed the order of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal ought to have closed the claim petition as abated after the death of Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh. The counsel further confronted that the award of the Tribunal contending that the death of the said Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh has no nexus with the accident, that the said Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh took treatment only as an outpatient and no post-mortem was conducted to support the contention of the claimants that the death was a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. The counsel also contended that the Tribunal has awarded huge sums. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at just Rs. 3,000 instead of Rs. The counsel also contended that the Tribunal has awarded huge sums. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at just Rs. 3,000 instead of Rs. 4,500 and paltry sums were awarded for loss of consortium, continuing expenses, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and no compensation on account of future prospects was awarded. The counsel relying upon the judgment reported in Govind Singh v. A.S. Kailasam, 1975 ACJ 215 (Madras) and Khairullah v. Anita, 1994 ACJ 1017 (AP), contended that the claim cannot be rejected on the ground that post-mortem was not conducted. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgments reported in Vatsala v. Meenakshi, 2005 (1) TN MAC 62; Maricar Motors Ltd. v. Neelambal Ramaswamy, 1982 ACJ (Supp) 570 (Madras); and the judgment delivered in C.M.A. No. 1305 of 2012 to contend that the legal heirs can very well maintain a claim for compensation for the death by impleading themselves in the claim petition filed by the deceased. The counsel also placed reliance upon the judgments reported in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC); Vimal Kamvar v. Kishore Dan, 2013 ACJ 1441 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), in support of his claim for enhancement. 8. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: "166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:" Section 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: "165. Claims Tribunals.-(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression 'claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle' includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section 163-A." The provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are as follows: "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be." 9. The ratio in the judgments reported in Vatsala v. Meenakshi, 2005 (1) TN MAC 62; Maricar Motors Ltd. v. Neelam-bal Ramaswamy, 1982 ACJ (Supp) 570 (Madras) and the judgment in C.M.A. No. 1305 of 2012 are that when factually it is established that the death was not unconnected to the injury, when sufficient materials are placed before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was taking continuous treatment and when no contra evidence is produced, the claim must be allowed. 10. In the present case, as found by the Tribunal, Exhs. P4 to P10 were marked to show that the deceased was continuously taking treatment. The period of treatment is immaterial. The argument put forth by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the claim petition ought to have been dismissed as abated is unsustainable and right away rejected. 10. In the present case, as found by the Tribunal, Exhs. P4 to P10 were marked to show that the deceased was continuously taking treatment. The period of treatment is immaterial. The argument put forth by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the claim petition ought to have been dismissed as abated is unsustainable and right away rejected. Even if the death is not due to the injuries, the legal heirs of the injured persons would be entitled to press for the claim on account of loss to the estate of the deceased, medical treatment, conveyance, special diet. However, in the instant case, the legal heirs of the deceased have impleaded themselves and claimed that the death of the deceased occurred only due to septicaemia because of infections in the injured areas. No contradictory evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent No. 2. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself contemplates payment of compensation to the legal heirs or to the victim as the case may be. Hence, the Tribunal was right in permitting the amendment and deciding the claim application. 11. The next contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the death of Anthony alias Anthony Rakesh was not due to the injuries suffered by him. According to the counsel for the respondent No. 2, unless a post-mortem report was produced, it could not be said that the death had a nexus with the injury. The counsel for the claimants has relied upon the following judgments to contend that post-mortem report is not necessary to prove that the death was caused by the after-effects of the injury. 12. In the judgment reported in Govind Singh v. A.S. Kailasam, 1975 ACJ 215 (Madras), this court has held as follows: "(9) ...In a case where the patient had been clinically diagnosed as suffering from tetanus or lock-jaw arid had succumbed to the disease despite treatment, an autopsy is not an indispensable test to determine the cause of death. (10) ...It is needless to say that if the cause of death is integrally connected with the injury sustained in the accident and is one in the chain of causa causens, the cause of death must be attributed to the injury sustained in the accident, however trivial or minor the injury, by itself, may be." 13. (10) ...It is needless to say that if the cause of death is integrally connected with the injury sustained in the accident and is one in the chain of causa causens, the cause of death must be attributed to the injury sustained in the accident, however trivial or minor the injury, by itself, may be." 13. In the judgment in Khairullah v. Anita, 1994 ACJ 1017 (AP), Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as follows: "(4) It is vehemently contended by Mr. P. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that no autopsy was conducted over the dead body of the deceased to arrive at the cause of death. It may be remembered that the deceased died during the course of medical treatment after about 25 days of the accident and he succumbed to the injuries. As already stated, Exh. A10, the inpatient discharge ticket of Hyderabad Nursing Home, where the deceased was undergoing treatment at the time of his death, shows that due to cardio-respiratory failure the deceased had died which is a consequence and secondary to head injury. The head injury was sustained by the deceased at the time of the accident. It is not a case under section 302, Indian Penal Code, wherein the conducting of post-mortem examination to know the cause of death may be necessary. In this case, the cause of death is known from the documentary evidence, especially Exh. A10, and also from the evidence of PW 2. The evidence of PW 2 is convincing. In the light of both oral and documentary evidence available in this case, the failure to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased cannot be taken as a circumstance against the claimants who are claiming compensation for the death of the deceased." 14. The ratio in the judgments are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. As stated above, the deceased was under continuous medical treatment. Exhs. P4 to P10 also reveal the presence of infection which is also corroborated by the evidence of PW 3. No contradictory evidence has been let in by the respondent No. 2. Applying the ratio in the above cases, I hold that the production of postmortem report is not compulsory as the reason for the death can be inferred from other documents, namely, Exh. P4 to Exh. P10. 15. No contradictory evidence has been let in by the respondent No. 2. Applying the ratio in the above cases, I hold that the production of postmortem report is not compulsory as the reason for the death can be inferred from other documents, namely, Exh. P4 to Exh. P10. 15. Now coming to the quantum, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 and deducted '/3rd towards his expenses. The deceased was an autorickshaw driver by profession. The wife of the deceased, PW 1, has claimed that he was earning Rs. 300 Rs. 400 per day. In the claim petition, the deceased himself had claimed to be earning Rs. 150 per day. No one could know the salary better than the person who earns it. Therefore, considering the nature of work, deceased would have definitely earned Rs. 150 per day and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 4,500. 16. No compensation has been awarded towards future prospects. It is settled law that the Tribunal and the courts have powers to enhance the compensation to ensure that the compensation is just. Even in the judgment reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), the Apex Court has reiterated the same. 17. With regard to future prospects, the Apex Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), has held as follows: "(14) We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in the judgment in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person, who is self-employed, or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. Rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. Rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/ emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. Salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that the salary of a class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of Rs. 1,00,000. Although the wages/income of those employed in unorganised sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor, who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 11 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person, who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 11 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person, who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person, who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages, will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/ she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. (15) It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earnings, i.e., Rs. 500, for personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs. 1,500 to spend 3rd on himself leaving 3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. (16) The Tribunal's observation that the two sons of the appellant cannot be treated as dependent on their father because they were not minor is neither here nor there. In the cross-examination of the appellant, no question was put to her about the source of sustenance of her two sons. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the sons, who had become major, can no longer be regarded dependent on the deceased. (17) In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and it is declared that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,94,840 [Rs. 1,500 + 30 per cent of Rs. 1,500 = Rs. 1,950 less 1/10th towards personal expenses = Rs. 1,755 x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,94,840]. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 5,000 towards transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000 as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,94,840 [Rs. 1,500 + 30 per cent of Rs. 1,500 = Rs. 1,950 less 1/10th towards personal expenses = Rs. 1,755 x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,94,840]. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 5,000 towards transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000 as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000 in lieu of loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants will be Rs. 3,19,840. Enhanced amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 1,42,340 ( Rs. 3,19,840 - Rs. 1,77,500) shall carry interest of 7 per cent from the date of application till realization. (18) Insurance company, respondent No. 1, is directed to pay to the appellant the total amount of compensation within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be delivered to her at the address given in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. While doing so, respondent No. 1 shall be free to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant." 18. Following the above judgment, the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), has held that there must be an addition of 50 per cent to the income in cases where the age of the deceased is 40 years. Deceased was only 37 at the time of accident. Considering the rise in cost of living and the fuel prices, income of the deceased would have definitely increased. Hence, the claimants are entitled to addition of 50 per cent on the income of Rs. 4,500 per month towards future prospects which is to be included while computing the compensation for loss of earnings. 19. With regard to the loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the claimant Nos. 3 and 4 and no amount has been awarded to claimant No. 2. The claimant No. 2 being the wife will have to spend all her life just with the nostalgic moments she had spent with the deceased. With no other male member in the family, she would definitely miss the care, affection and guidance of the deceased. Claimant Nos. 3 and 4, who were minors then, have lost their father at a very crucial age during the teens. Considering all the above, the compensation towards loss of love and affection is fixed at Rs. 25,000 for each of the claimant Nos. Claimant Nos. 3 and 4, who were minors then, have lost their father at a very crucial age during the teens. Considering all the above, the compensation towards loss of love and affection is fixed at Rs. 25,000 for each of the claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 20. The next point is funeral expenses. In the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the claimants reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), the Apex Court has held in para 21 as follows: "We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'funeral expenses'. The 'price index', it is a fact, has gone up in that regard also. The head 'funeral expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased was a follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'funeral expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000." 21. Considering the culture and practices in the society and following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgment, I find the claim reasonable and, therefore, enhance the compensation towards funeral expenses to Rs. 20,000. 22. With regard to mental agony, pain and suffering, the deceased also would have undergone severe pain and mental agony throughout the period of treatment. The agony for claimant Nos. 2 to 4 would continue till their lifetime. Considering the same, a sum of Rs. 10,000 is awarded to each of the claimants and a sum of Rs. 2,500 is awarded towards transportation. 23. The Tribunal has awarded 12 per cent interest which this court finds to be high and hence, the same is reduced to 7.5 per cent. This court finds no valid reasons to interfere with other portions of the award and the award is enhanced as follows: Income of the deceased [Rs. 4,500 + Rs. 2,500 is awarded towards transportation. 23. The Tribunal has awarded 12 per cent interest which this court finds to be high and hence, the same is reduced to 7.5 per cent. This court finds no valid reasons to interfere with other portions of the award and the award is enhanced as follows: Income of the deceased [Rs. 4,500 + Rs. 2,250 (50 per cent addition)] Rs.6,750 Less ?rd towards personal expenses Rs.2,250 Total per month Rs.4,500 Loss of earnings (Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 16) Rs.8,64,000 Additions towards Medical expenses Rs.20,000 Loss of consortium Rs.10,000 Funeral expenses Rs.20,000 Love and affection Rs.75,000 Mental agony Rs.30,000 Transportation charges Rs.2,500 Total Rs.10,21,500 24. Respondent No. 2 shall deposit the award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Claimants shall remit the additional court-fee within 4 weeks failing which the enhanced amount shall not carry any interest. Out of the difference amount awarded by this court, claimant No. 2, wife, would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,11,500 and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 being minor children are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 each. On deposit by the insurance company, the claimants, except the minor claimants, are entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application and with regard to the minors' share, the direction of the Tribunal to deposit the same holds good. 25. In the result, the appeal as well as the miscellaneous petition is dismissed with costs and cross-objection is allowed in part.