JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Senthilkumar, who died in the accident that took place on 20.08.2017. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident, at about 14.15 hours, when the deceased Senthilkumar was travelling with the respondents 1 to 3 in a TVS XL bearing Registration No.TN-36-H-4929, along the left side of the ABT Road, four road opposite to Sona Bakery in South to North direction, while turning the vehicle to right side to reach Old Bus Stand after showing necessary hand signal and using indicator, the driver of the Mini Bus Sabari bearing Registration No.TN 39 AF 6358, owned by the 5th respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the TVS XL and caused the accident. In the accident, the respondents 1 to 3 along with the said Senthilkumar sustained severe injuries. Due to the head injury and injuries all over the body, the said Senthilkumar died on 21.08.2017. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Mini Bus Sabari and hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed claim petition against the 5th respondent and appellant as owner and insurer of the Mini Bus Sabari. 4. The 5th respondent, owner of the Mini Bus Sabari, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. 4. The 5th respondent, owner of the Mini Bus Sabari, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Mini Bus Sabari, owned by the 5th respondent. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that at the time of accident, the driver of the said Mini Bus Sabari possessed valid driving license to ply the vehicle, failing which, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. In any event, the respondents 1 to 4 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Paulraj was examined as P.W.2 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P24. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Mini Bus Sabari, owned by the 5th respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. 8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 31.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.2068 of 2017, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the respondents 1 to 4 have not filed any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal, erroneously relying on the evidence of P.W.1, who is an interested witness, fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to the respondents 2 to 4 and 1st respondent respectively are excessive. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to the respondents 2 to 4 and 1st respondent respectively are excessive. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for reducing the same and allowing the appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 made submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Though notice has been served on the 5th respondent and her name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for her either in person or through counsel. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the entire materials available on record. 13. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents 1 to 4 have claimed that the deceased Senthilkumar was aged 35 years, running a Canteen in the name and style of Sathya Parcels and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. They did not file any documents to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed meagre sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2017. Considering the year of accident and nature of work done by the deceased, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre and it requires no interference. In view of the same, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal to the respondents 2 to 4, towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1,60,000/- granted to the 1st respondent towards loss of consortium are not interfered with. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.23,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.23,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with 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, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.2068 of 2017. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor respondents 2 and 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minors attain majority. The 1st respondent, mother of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 and 3. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.