JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 dated 10.01.2013.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 dated 10.01.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur. 2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 5 herein are the respondents 3 to 5 in the claim petition. The respondents 3 to 5 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent. The appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, claiming compensation for the c Anand, in an accident that took place on 13.10.2007. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,33,070/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Seventy only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 is as follows: On 13.10.2007, when minor Anand was standing on the extreme left side of the Kaliyappanoor Pirivu road near Karur – Gujiliyamparai road, the first respondent drove the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-57- K-6586 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor boy. He was taken to Amaravathi Hospital, Karur and then he was shifted to KMCH hospital, Coimbatore. He died on 26.10.2007. The deceased was aged about 17 years and was studying 10th standard at the time of accident. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, is as follows: The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is false. The first respondent never informed the accident to the second respondent and he has violated the terms of the policy. The claim is excessive. 5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the guardian for the respondents 4 and 5, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, is as follows: The manner of the accident, nature of injury and medical expenses are all denied. The accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The claim is excessive. 5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the guardian for the respondents 4 and 5, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, is as follows: The manner of the accident, nature of injury and medical expenses are all denied. The accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The claim is excessive. The first respondent vehicle is duely insured with the second respondent. There is no violation of policy condition. If at all any compensation has to be paid, it has to be paid only by the second respondent. 6. On the side of the petitioners, three witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,33,070/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Seventy only) as compensation to be paid by the respondents 2 to 5 therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-57-K-6586 was not involved in the accident, as alleged by the claimants. The registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR and in the medical records. P.W.2 has not explained as to how he know the registration number of the vehicle. P.W.2 has admitted that he did not see the registration number of the vehicle at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and that the entire burden of proof lies on the claimants. There is no substantial oral or documentary evidence to prove the involvement of the vehicle. The award was passed on sympathy and not on evidence. The quantum of award is excessive. The negligence was on the part of the minor. In support of his contention, a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013(1) TNMAC 481 is cited. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that even in the FIR, the number of the vehicle was not mentioned and that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that even in the FIR, the number of the vehicle was not mentioned and that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 8. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the deceased was a minor boy, aged about 17 years and was doing 10th standard at the time of accident. He was just standing near the house. Only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, he sustained head injuries and died on 26.10.2007. He was taking treatment as 'in patient' for 12 days. There was no delay in lodging the complaint. The trial Court has discussed the issue in a detailed manner and has come to a conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Even in the evidence of R.W.2 and in the investigating report, Ex.R6, it was stated that the owner of the vehicle has admitted the factum of the accident and that he did not know his own vehicle number. 9. P.W.3 has inspected the vehicle and has submitted a report, Ex.P7. The non mentioning of the number of the vehicle in the FIR cannot be taken as an adverse inference against the claimants. The involvement of the vehicle was proved by the evidence of R.W.2 and by Ex.R6. Hence, it is decided that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-57-K-6586 was involved in the accident. The vehicle was insured and the policy was in force at the time of accident. The policy copy was marked as Ex.R1 and hence, it is decided that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 10. From Ex.P6, it is clear that the date of birth of the deceased is 29.07.1990. The accident occurred in the year 2007. The age of the deceased was fixed as 17 years. On the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Ummal Marjuna Beevi reported in 2012 (2) TNMAC 253, the Tribunal has fixed the loss of income as Rs.3,65,000/-. The decision of the Division Bench made on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 593. The decision of the Division Bench made on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 593. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the judgment of the Division Bench, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income (Rs.3,65,000/-) is reasonable. 11. The medical bills were marked as Ex.P4. The discharge summary was marked as Ex.P5. On the basis of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, a sum of Rs.1,03,170/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand One Hundred and Seventy only) was awarded towards medical expenses by the Tribunal, which is reasonable and the same is rounded off to Rs.1,03,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand and Five Hundred only). The petitioner is not entitled for compensation for the pain and suffering of the deceased. The award amount fixed by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection (Rs.30,000/-), funeral expenses (Rs.5,000/-) and transport expenses (Rs.5,000/-) are reasonable. In total, a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Eight Thousand only) is awarded as compensation. 12. The respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Eight Thousand only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 13. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.5,08,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Eight Thousand only) with 7.5% interest from date of the claim petition till the date of realization and the amount if not deposited earlier, has to be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal with proportionate interest, after deducting any amount received by them earlier. Excess amount, if any deposited shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.