JUDGMENT T. KRISHNAVALLI, J. 1. Assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Court), Maura, in MCOP No.796 of 2011, dated 05.02.2016, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants as the legal-heirs of the deceased R.Chinnathambi filed MCOP No.796 of 2011 claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The case of the claimants is that on 11.02.2009 at about 14.30 hours, when the deceased Chinnathambi was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-58-S-1858 on Thiruparankundram Main Road near TNSTC Depot, a lorry bearing registration No. TDA 8388 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the two wheeler. In the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to Apollo Hospital, Madurai and thereafter, he was admitted as inpatient at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, from 11.02.2009 to 18.02.2009 and subsequently, he was taking treatment in various private hospitals and finally, he succumbed to injuries on 01.09.2009. In this regard, a case in Crime No.58 of 2009 stands registered against the driver of the lorry under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 3. The claimants have stated that the deceased was 39 years old at the time of accident and he was working as a Conductor in TNSTC, Madurai Region, thereby he was earning Rs. 7,649/- per month. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the manner of the accident and their liability to pay the compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal in order to establish their case, the claimants examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to P22. On the side of the Insurance Company, 3 witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs. 23,10,620/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed. 7. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs. 23,10,620/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued that the deceased died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident and he died only due to the ailment already suffered and the death was only natural and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. On the other hand, it is argued on the side of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants that the deceased was not having any ailment, much prior to the accident and the death was caused only due to the injuries sustained in the accident and the deceased was taking treatment continuously till his death and there is nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased and hence, the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. PW1 stated that on 11.02.2009 at 14.30 hours, when her husband was riding in his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN58-S-1858 on Thiruparankundram Main road near TNSTC Depot Thiruparankundram and when he came at Subramania Swami Girls Higher Secondary School with due care and caution keeping left side of the road, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. TDA 8388 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased Chinnathambi and caused serious injuries to him. 11. Pw2 is the eye witness. PW2 deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver. On the other hand, it is stated by the Insurance Company that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, but an unknown two wheeler dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased and due to it, he sustained injuries and hence, they are not liable to pay compensation. 12. It is disputed by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. But in respect of the accident, FIR was registered against the offending vehicle. 12. It is disputed by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. But in respect of the accident, FIR was registered against the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW1. RW1 deposed that a two wheeler dashed against the vehicle of the deceased and he saw the accident and afterwards, the police came and enquired him and in order to help the claimants, he was falsely implicated in this case. RW1 has not sent any complaint to the police opposing the registration of the criminal case against him. Further, he has not taken any steps to quash the First Information Report and charge sheet filed against him. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that in the Accident Register copy issued by the Government Hospital, Madurai, it was stated that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident due to the unknown two wheeler dashed against him and in order to get compensation, the lorry was falsely implicated and hence, they are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 14. In this case, at first, the deceased as a patient was admitted in Apollo Hospital. The discharge summary issued by the Apollo hospital was marked as Ex.P8. On perusal of Ex.P8, it is stated as follows:- "39 years old male patient came to emergency with alleged history of RTA while riding two-wheeler hit by unknown vehicle on 11/02/2009 at 1.30 P.M. near Arulandavar School, brought her on 11/02/09 at 3.20 P.M. No history of LOC/vomiting/seizure. No history of ENT bleeding: History of bleeding and pain in the right lower abdomen + Not a known DM/HTN/IHD." 15. In Ex.P8 it is not stated that one two wheeler dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. It is only stated that an unknown vehicle dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. 16. On perusal of the evidence of RW1, it reveals that at the time of the accident, RW1 was in the place of occurrence. RW1 has not explained that even though number of persons saw the occurrence, why the police enquired him alone. Further, the First Information Report was also registered against him. He has not taken any steps to oppose the registration of the criminal case against him. RW1 has not explained that even though number of persons saw the occurrence, why the police enquired him alone. Further, the First Information Report was also registered against him. He has not taken any steps to oppose the registration of the criminal case against him. To prove that a two wheeler dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, the AR copy issued by the Government Hospital, Madurai was marked, at the time of cross examination of PW1 by 2nd respondent counsel and the above AR copy was marked as Ex.R1. 17. On perusal of Ex.R1 it is stated that "alleged to have met with RTA while travelling in a two wheeler and hit by two wheeler at about 2.15 pm on 11.02.2009." While cross examining PW1, she denied that she has not stated to the Doctor that against her husband's two wheeler, one unknown two wheeler was dashed. Since it was denied by PW1, who is the wife of the deceased who took her husband to the Government Hospital, Madurai, much importance cannot be given to the entry made in the AR copy. 18. Ex.P8 is the first statement in respect of the accident. In Ex.P8, it was not stated that the accident occurred due to the two wheeler, which dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. In this case, to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, the Investigating Officer appointed by the 2nd respondent Insurance Company was examined as RW2. RW2 deposed that on verification of AR copy issued by the Government Hospital, it reveals that only an unknown two wheeler dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. Neither RW1, nor RW2 stated the particulars of the two wheeler, which dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. Already, it was decided that the first statement given before the Apollo Hospital prevails other statement. Hence, the evidence of RW2 based on Ex.R1 that the accident did not occur is not acceptable. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW2, it reveals that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred. Hence, it is held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TDA 8388. 19. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW2, it reveals that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred. Hence, it is held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TDA 8388. 19. On a perusal of medical records Exs.P8, P11 and P12, it is seen that the deceased Chinnathambi was taking continuous treatment from the date of the accident on 11.02.2009 till the date of discharge on 24.08.2009, due to his poor body condition, he was sent to his house on 24.08.2009 and he died at his residence on 01.09.2009. Since he died in the residence, no postmortem was done on the body of the deceased Chinnathambi. 20. It is well settled law that no postmortem is required to claim compensation by the claimants, if it is proved that the death was caused only due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 21. In the instant case, only due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased died. Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the appellant Insurance Company that there was no nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased and therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation is not at all acceptable. 22. On perusal of the records would reveal that the deceased was working as a Conductor in TNSTC, Madurai and he was getting Rs. 7,649/- per month. It was corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P22 Salary certificate. Considering the above facts, the tribunal, in the considered opinion of this court, has rightly fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 7,649/- per month and after adding 50% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the monthly income was arrived at Rs. 7,649/- per month and by applying proper multiplier 15', awarded Rs. 13,76,820/- (Rs.7,649/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency. 23. Perusal of the award of the tribunal under conventional heads, the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 13 SCALE 12 , this Court modifies the awards under the conventional heads. 13,76,820/- (Rs.7,649/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency. 23. Perusal of the award of the tribunal under conventional heads, the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 13 SCALE 12 , this Court modifies the awards under the conventional heads. In this manner, the compensation that is payable to the claimants is worked out as under:- Head Award of the tribunal Award of this court Loss of dependency Rs.13,76,820/- Rs.13,76,820/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 75,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Rs. 15,000/- Nil Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Cost of Attender Rs. 20,000/- Nil Loss of Happiness (pain and suffering) Rs. 50,000/- Nil Medical expenses Rs. 5,43,800/- Rs, 5,43,800/- Total Rs.23,10,620/- Rs.20,75,620/- 24. In total, the claimants would be entitled for Rs. 20,75,620/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 25. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed on the following terms:- (a)The award is reduced to Rs. 20,75,620/- from Rs. 23,10,620/-. (b)The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount together with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (c)On such compliance, the 1st claimant is entitled to get Rs. 8,75,620/- and the minor claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs. 6,00,000/-, with accrued interest and costs. (d)The share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks on a fixed deposit scheme, till they attain majority. The 1st claimant, being the mother and guardian of the minors is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the fixed deposit once in three months for the welfare of the minors. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.