JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1528 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 4 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Dhanalakshmi, have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub- Court, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.1528 of 2015 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for the death of one Dhanalakshmi in the road accident taken place on 10.02.2015. 2. The appellant/second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal alleging that the accident had taken place only due to the contributary negligence of the rider of the two wheeler, namely, the decased and also contended that she had not died due to the accidental injuries. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of petitioner, the husband of the deceased/first petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined Dr.Arunagiri and Dr.Ramanathapandian as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence avilable on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant herein and based upon the medical evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the United India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical evidence dose not support the contention of the claim petitioners that the injured deceased died only due to the accidental injuries and further contended that the rate of interest is 7.5% per annum only and decides conventional heads and therefore, are not in accordance with law as per the decision laid down in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 44 years and she was working as a Staff Nurse and hence, the fixation of the notional income of the deceased is erroneous and prayed that even before there being any cross objection or cross appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimants, the Court can suo motu enhance the compensation subject to the payment of Court fee. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials avilable on record. 8. The manner of the accident is described as under:- On 10.02.2015, at about 04.00 pm., the deceased was riding a TVS Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.TN-05-W-3002 on the Tirunelveli- Tiruchendur main road, near Kumarapuram Maveeran Nagar Vilakku towards west on the left side of the road and at that time, a TVS Apache bearing Registration No.TN-22-BK-3135 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent came from just behind the deeased motorcycle in a high speed and hit against the rear portion of the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out of the motorcylce and fell down on the road and sustained serious head injuries besides multiple injuries all over the body. 9. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that while the deceased, namely, Dhanalakshmi was riding her two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-05-W-3002, a vehicle insured with the appellant/Insurance Company came from the just behind the motorcycle of the deceased in a high speed and while overtaking, dashed against the on-going two wheeler of the deceased and thereby, caused the accident. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is duly collaborated with Ex.P1/FIR. 10. On the side of appellant/Insurance Company, no one was examined and the rider of the two wheeler/offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance company has also not been examined. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is duly collaborated with Ex.P1/FIR. 10. On the side of appellant/Insurance Company, no one was examined and the rider of the two wheeler/offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance company has also not been examined. Hence, I find that in view of clear and cogent evidence of P.W. 1 and Ex.P1 and in the absence of any positive suggestions from the cross-examination of P.W.1 and in the absence of any contrary evidence being adduced by the Insurance Company, the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant/insurance company is well considered and well merited and therefore, it does not warrant any interference and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. 11. The another contention of the appellant is that the deceased has not died due to the accidental injuries. The lower Court records would reveal that Dr.Arunagiri and Dr.Ramanathapandian were examined by the claim petitioner as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the Accident Register marked as Ex.P3, discharge summary of Shipa Nurshing Home and Mahalakshmi Nurshing Home for the period from 10.02.2015 to 20.02.2015 and RSP hospital discharge summary for the period from 04.03.2015 to 07.03.2015, would clearly show that in the accident, deceased Dhanalakshmi has sustained bleedings in the brain and also blood clot for which, Eptoin tablet was given and thereafter, the same was stopped. An attempt was made in the cross-examination that the said tablets were given for 'fits' is also negatived by the competent witnesses, namely P.W. 2 and PW.3. From Exs.P6 and P7. 12. I find that the deceased suffered grievous injuries, which are acute Subarachnoid I lemorrhage in bilateral parietal convexity. Multiple foci of intraparenchymal hemorrhagic contusion in left tempora and parietal lobe with surrounding edema. Thin MM Resolving subdural hemorrhage in left fronto paricetal convexity. No evidence of midline shift/brain herniation. Linear non-displaced fracture of right parictal bone with horizontal fracture of right mastoid with hemomastoid. Thin linear non-displaced fracture of floor of sphenoid sinus. Displaced spiral fracture in right clavicle at junction of middle 1/3 and lateral 1/3. Calcified granuluma in right upper lobe and right middle lobe. Left minimal pleural effusion. Right moderate pleural effusion. Musaic attenuation due to air trapping inbilateral lung Parenchyama. 13. Thin linear non-displaced fracture of floor of sphenoid sinus. Displaced spiral fracture in right clavicle at junction of middle 1/3 and lateral 1/3. Calcified granuluma in right upper lobe and right middle lobe. Left minimal pleural effusion. Right moderate pleural effusion. Musaic attenuation due to air trapping inbilateral lung Parenchyama. 13. Ex.P16 discharge summary it is specifically held that the deceased Dhanalakshmi has suffered serious brin injuries. The said discharge summary was clearly colaborated with the oral evidence of P.W.2/Dr.Arunagiri, who is from Sheepa Nurshing Home and from the medical evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3/Doctors, I find that necessary tablets were given for the blood clot in the Brain. Furthermore, from the above said documents, it is seen that the deceased Dhanalakshmi had taken treament from the date of accident, namely, 10.02.2015 and 17.04.2015. The above said injury is duly reflected in the Ex.P4/discharge summary and the nature of the injury has been duly reflected. Furthermore, it remains to be stated that the Insurance Company has not let in any contra evidence to disbelieve the medical evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also Exs.P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P15, P16 and P17. 14. In the decisions reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 384 and 2015 (1) TNMAC 526, this Court has held that when the injury on account of the accident and the factum of the accident are admitted and continous treatment till the death is proved, it can safely inferred that the death was on the account of the injuries sustained in the accident and hence, I find that the claimants let in positive evidence to show and demonstrate that in the accident taken place on 10.02.2015, Dhanalakshmi had suffered above said injury and was taking treatment and subsequently, while contintuity of the treatment she died and hence, I have no hesitation to hold that she died due to the accidental injuries and hence, the above contention of the appellant stands negatived and the finding of the Tribunal that on the scope as stated supra is hereby upheld and the owner of the two wheeler and the Insurance Company/appellat herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 15. On the point of quantum, both the parties are heard. The claim petitioners stated that the deceased was working as staff nurse after her post graduate and no positive evidence was produced before the Tribunal to prove her work. 15. On the point of quantum, both the parties are heard. The claim petitioners stated that the deceased was working as staff nurse after her post graduate and no positive evidence was produced before the Tribunal to prove her work. Taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 and the fact that the accident is of the year 2015, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only). Since three persons are depending on the income of the deceased, 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Based upon the documents, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 44' and proper multiplier that has to be adopted in the instant case is 14 as per the decision rendered in Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . As per the decision laid down in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601, the Tribunal added 30% towards future prospectus of the deceased and hence, peculiar loss sustained by the claimants/petitioners, calculated by the Tribunal is hereby found to be just and fair. For the loss of felisial consortium, the husband is entitled for Rs.40,000/- and the claimants 2 and 3 being the daughters are entitled for Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively towards transportation, funeral expenses and attender charges and extra nourishment, which are very excessive and the same is reduced to Rs.15,000/- respectively. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period of two months and a sum of Rs.1,35,890/- towards medical bills as per Ex.P14. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate and this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Rate of interest 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 16. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1528 of 2015 is modified as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1. Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.8,73,600/- Rs.8,73,600/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- 3. Love and affection for the 1st and 2nd claimant Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.80,000/- 4. Love and affection for the third respondent Rs.50,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Transportation Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1. Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs.8,73,600/- Rs.8,73,600/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- 3. Love and affection for the 1st and 2nd claimant Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.80,000/- 4. Love and affection for the third respondent Rs.50,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Transportation Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Medical expenses Rs.1,35,890/- Rs.1,35,890/- 8. Loss of income during the treatment period for two months Rs.12,000/- Rs.12,000/- 9. Attendar charges during medical period Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/- 10. Mental Agony Rs.13,500/- Vacated Total Rs.14,49,990/- (Rounded as Rs.14,50,000/-) Rs.12,26,490/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 14,50,000/- to Rs.12,26,490/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 17. In the result, (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.14,50,000/- to Rs.12,26,490/-. (iii) The appellant – Insurance Company is directed to deposited the compensation awarded by this court, i.e., Rs.12,26,490/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (if not already deposited) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1528 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) On such deposit being made by the present appellant, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, in the suitable manner known to law. (v) The present appellant – Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount, in excess of the award passed by this Court, if any, in the suitable manner known to law.