JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 1602 of 2017 dated 07.12.2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Additional District Court, Madurai, and allow the appeal with Costs.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.12.2020 in M.C.O.P. No.1602 of 2017 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 03.06.2017 at about 17.30hrs., at Kalkurichi to Viruthunagar main road at Kalkurichi junction. When the deceased Pavithra was travelling as pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-58-Y-7117 which was proceeding towards east from west and the rider of the motor cycle drove the vehicle in a slow and speed and following traffic rules of the road and keeping the left side and weighing for cross at Kalkurichi junction. At the time, the respondent's car bearing registration No.TN-66-C-2939 was coming from norht and proceeding towards south in a highly rash and negligent manner and great speed neither horning nor following the traffic rules of the road and lost his control and dashed the motor cycle. In the said accident, the deceased was thrown out and sustained grievous bleeding fatal injuries on head and chest. Though, better treatment was given to Pavithra succumbed the injuries on 06.06.2017. 3. The claimant has filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.1602 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VI Additional District Court, Madurai, seeking compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal, the two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 and marked nineteen documents as Exs.P-1 to P-19. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant. Disability certificate was marked as Ex.C.1. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and claimant and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.24,96,200/- as compensation. 6. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court. 7. 6. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in awarding a higher compensation for the claimant without appreciating the facts of the case. He would further submit that the Tribunal erred and miserably failed in not considering that the deceased who was travelling as a pillion rider and the P.W.2 rider who is the father of the deceased did not wear helmet and is also contributory negligence for the accident. He would further submit that the Tribunal has grossly erred in fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased who is a home maker as Rs.12,000/-p.m., which appears to be on the higher side and considering the settled position of law ought to have fixed Rs.6,000/-p.m. 9. The 1st respondent/claimant is husband of the deceased Pavithra has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1602 of 2017 seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VI Additional District Court, Madurai. After considering both side evidences, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.24,96,200/-as compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of petition. 10. The appellant/insurance company has raised an objection regarding the quantum of compensation on the following grounds: (i) The tribunal erred in fixing monthly income of Rs.12,000/-p.m. (ii). The tribunal erred in deducting personal expenses as 1/3 instead of 50% since the husband alone claiming the compensation. (iii). To be deducted 10% for contributory negligence. 11. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company contended that the driver of the two wheeler did not possess valid license and both of them did not wear helmet. 12. Regarding salary, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.12,000/-p.m., as monthly income. 13. Admittedly the deceased (wife of the claimant) is a B.A. graduate. But, she is un-employed and she is a home maker. Her age is about 21 years. The Tribunal has fixed her monthly income is as Rs.12,000/-p.m., as per the Judgment reported in 2017(1)TNMAC 427 in the case of M.Premkumar Vs. M.Palaniappan and another. In the above Judgment, the claimant is aged about 19 years and studying 12th standard. In this case, the deceased is only a home maker. Her age is about 21 years. The Tribunal has fixed her monthly income is as Rs.12,000/-p.m., as per the Judgment reported in 2017(1)TNMAC 427 in the case of M.Premkumar Vs. M.Palaniappan and another. In the above Judgment, the claimant is aged about 19 years and studying 12th standard. In this case, the deceased is only a home maker. Further prospects fixed at 50%. Notional income fixed at Rs.8,000/-p.m., in the above case. 14. In the case on hand, the deceased was a decree holder and therefore, the monthly income of Rs.9,000/-p.m., is reasonable one. 15. The deceased has no permanent income. Therefore, as Pranay Sethi case further prospects cannot be added. 16. The appellant/insurance company questioned the deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses. But, the deceased is married. When she is bachelor 50% must be deducted. Therefore, 1/3 of deduction is correct. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased and driver of the two wheeler were not possess valid license and no helmet was wearing by them. 18. The Civil Appeal No.79 of 2020 in the case of Mohammed Siddique and another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: .... “14. In the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside. ” 19. The appellant/insurance company has also admitted that there is a valid policy at the time of accident. 20. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows: S.No Description Amount awarded by Award confirmed/enhanced/granted Tribunal this Court 1. For Loss of income(6000x12x18) Rs.24,19,200/- Rs.12,96,000/- Modified 2. For loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Confirmed 3. For transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed 4. For loss of life estate Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed 5. For loss of materials Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Confirmed 6. For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.24,96,200/- Rs.13,73,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 21. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Confirmed 4. For loss of life estate Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Confirmed 5. For loss of materials Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Confirmed 6. For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.24,96,200/- Rs.13,73,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 21. In view of the said modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, awarded the compensation of Rs.13,73,000/-. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount other than already deposited amount through 'E' transfer on the account of the revision petitioner, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After depositing the amount, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.