ORDER : 1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.350 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sankari, the appellants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement. 2. Brief facts are that on 14.4.2011, the deceased Thangammal was standing near Koottapalli bus stop at the extreme left side of Erode-Tiruchengode main road. At that time, a car bearing registration No.TN-28 AB 2881 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained injuries on her head, right hand finger, right leg and all over the body. After the accident, she was admitted in Government Hospital, Tiruchengode where from the deceased was shifted to Krishna Hospital, Tiruchengode and thereafter, shifted to Lotus Hospital, Erode and succumbed to injuries on 27.4.2011. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the claimants, who are husband, sons and daughter have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is stated that the first respondent is the owner of the offending car and the second respondent is the insurer of the car. 3. Denying the accident, the second respondent filed counter stating that driver of the first respondent's car without valid and effective driving licence drove the car involved in the accident. As per the licence issued to him, the driver Ranjithkumar was not authorised to drive the transport vehicle at the time of accident and that the owner of the offending car had committed breach of policy condition. Therefore, the second respondent insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Without prejudice to the contentions, the second respondent denied the age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and also stated that the compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs claimed by the claimants was excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Natesan was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. On the side of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Holding that at the time of accident, the offending car was insured with the second respondent and that the driver of car was having valid driving licence to drove the same, the Tribunal directed the second respondent to pay the compensation. Taking the daily income of the deceased at Rs.100/-, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/- and paid court fee thereon. 6. It is not necessary for this Court to narrate entire facts in detail qua negligence and liability. It is for the reasons that these things are recorded by the Tribunal that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Since the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is based on evidence and also none of these findings are under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent being the insurer of the offending car is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants is affirmed. 7. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed error in awarding meager amount by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and in fact, at the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- from her agricultural work. He would submit that the amount awarded under the heads loss of love and affection, transport charges are very low and the same need enhancement. The learned counsel further submitted that ultimately, the total compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is very low and not sensible in the circumstances of the case. Hence, prayed further enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the total compensation of the Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted. 9. Hence, prayed further enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the total compensation of the Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 10. According to the appellants, the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. In his evidence, P.W.1 stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and by doing agricultural work, she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. To disprove the same, the second respondent has not produced any materials. Assuming that the deceased was an agricultural coolie, she would have earned at least Rs.200/- per day. However, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that during 2011, even agricultural coolie would have earned at least Rs.5,000/- per month excluding the holidays, this Court is fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and the annual income at Rs.60,000/-. 11. The Tribunal deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses as the family members are six in numbers. Since one-fourth deduction made by the Tribunal is reasonable, the same is maintained. Deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.45,000/- per annum. 12. Though the claimants contended that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 53 years, Ex.P7-post-mortem certificate shows that the deceased was aged 55 years. For the age group 51 – 55 years, the proper multiplier to be adopted is “11”, which the Tribunal has rightly taken. Adopting multiplier “11”, the total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.4,95,000/-. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the accident occurred on 14.04.2011 and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 27.4.2011. But Ex.P8-death certificate shows that the date of death of the deceased as 18.4.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that during the period of treatment, the claimants have incurred a sum of Rs.25,139/- towards medical expenses and to prove the same, they have marked Ex.P6-medical bills. But Ex.P8-death certificate shows that the date of death of the deceased as 18.4.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that during the period of treatment, the claimants have incurred a sum of Rs.25,139/- towards medical expenses and to prove the same, they have marked Ex.P6-medical bills. However, the Tribunal discarded Ex.P6-bills by holding that without production of medical prescription and history of treatment, the claimants cannot claim the aforesaid amount towards medical expenses. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of treatment undergone by the deceased, it cannot be said that the claimants have not incurred medical expenses during treatment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident and also taking note of the treatment undergone by the deceased at various hospitals, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. 14. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Since the claimants 2 to 6 have lost the love and affection of their mother due to death in road accident, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is reasonable and the same is maintained. 15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. Since the amounts awarded under the aforesaid heads are reasonable, the same are maintained. 16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,27,000/- as under: Heads Rs. Loss of dependency 4,95,000.00 Medical expenses 25,000.00 Loss of consortium to 1 st appellant 50,000.00 Loss of love and affection 1,50,000.00 Funeral expenses 5,000.00 Transport charges 2,000.00 Total 7,27,000.00 The appellants have claimed enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. This Court arrived at a conclusion that the appellants are entitled enhancement of Rs.2,23,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pay the difference court. 17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.350 of 2011 dated 08.11.2013 is enhanced to Rs.7,27,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. 17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.350 of 2011 dated 08.11.2013 is enhanced to Rs.7,27,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced compensation along with interest is directed to be deposited by the second respondent before the Tribunal within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants are directed to pay the difference court fee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the total compensation of Rs.7,27,000/-, the first appellant is entitled to get Rs.2,27,000/- and the appellants 2 to 6 are entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- each. On deposit of the enhanced compensation, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with accrued interest.