JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, made in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, dated 18.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Karur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, dated 18.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Karur. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 & 2 herein are the claimants and the third respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition. 2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, is as follows:- On 17.10.2015, at about 6.15 pm, when the deceased-Kalimuthu was riding a moped bearing Registration No.TN-33-AY-5173 along the Karur- Dharapuram main road, near Aravankadu Thottam, a mini Truck bearing Registration No.TN-47-U-5008 came in a rash and negligent manner from behind the deceased and dashed against the motorcycle. He was taken to Government Hospital, Aravakurichi, there he was declared dead. The deceased was doing weaving business and he was earning Rs.25,000/-per month. He was doing agriculture and he was earning Rs.35,000/-through agriculture and milk business. The petitioners are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation. 3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, is as follows:- The age, occupation and income of the deceased are all false. The income is exaggerated. The driver of the Truck was drove the vehicle in a slow and careful manner, it was the deceased, who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly turned to the right side and he invited the accident. The deceased was 67 years old and he could not have engaged himself in somany business activities. The Truck driver was not having valid driving licence. The first respondent violated the policy conditions and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The first respondent driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road in a negligent manner and he invited the accident. The treatment particulars are all denied. The age and education of the petitioner are all denied. The claim is excessive. 4. The first respondent driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road in a negligent manner and he invited the accident. The treatment particulars are all denied. The age and education of the petitioner are all denied. The claim is excessive. 4. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,20,020/- as compensation. 5. Against the award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:- The Tribunal has failed to consider the age of the deceased. Without any documentary proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.25,000/-, which is excessive. The total compensation is excessive. 6. Copy of the F.I.R was marked as Ex.P1. Copy of M.V.I. reports were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Copy of rough sketch was marked as Ex.P4. Copy of the charge sheet was marked as Ex.P6. P.W.2 was examined as an eye witness, has deposed that the Truck hit the motorcycle from the backside. The appellant is admitting a portion in the quantum of compensation, hence, it is decided that the liability fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. On the side of the respondents 1 & 2 - claimants, it is stated that the deceased was doing weaving business and the wage vouchers for weaving work were marked as Ex.P7 and P8. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased was having agricultural land and was doing cattle and milk vending business. Copy of the partition deed was marked as Ex.P9. Except P.W.1, no other witness was examined on the side of the claimants, to prove the income mere possession of an agricultural land cannot be wholly taken into consideration. Without the marking of Adangal, the income deriving from the land, cannot be decided that the agricultural land was being cultivated and that the deceased drived income from the land. Except P.W.1, no other witness was examined on the side of the claimants, to prove the income mere possession of an agricultural land cannot be wholly taken into consideration. Without the marking of Adangal, the income deriving from the land, cannot be decided that the agricultural land was being cultivated and that the deceased drived income from the land. There is no oral evidence on the validity of the Wage Vouchers was produced on the side of the claimants, hence, the income is reduced to Rs.21,000/- per month. 9. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is 67 years. After deducting 1/3rd (Rs.7,000/-) of the income towards the own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.14,000/- towards his family members. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier ''5'', is applicable and after applying multiplier, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,40,000/- (Rs.14,000/- X 12 X 5) towards loss of income. 10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which are all excessive. As per the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi''s case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional charges. 11. The total compensation is calculated as follows:- Loss of income Rs. 8,40,000/- Conventional charges Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation Rs. 9,10,000/- 12. This Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.11,20,020/- to Rs. 9,10,000/-. (i) The first claimant-wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- with proportionate interest and costs; The second claimant – daughter of the deceased is entitled to Rs.4,10,000/-with proportionate interest. (ii) The appellant herein - Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs. 9,10,000/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company. (iii) On such deposit being made, claimants are permitted to withdraw their share with proportionate interest and costs as apportioned by this Court, on filing proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by them. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. (iii) On such deposit being made, claimants are permitted to withdraw their share with proportionate interest and costs as apportioned by this Court, on filing proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by them. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. No costs.