JUDGMENT : K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 19.10.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.335 of 2020 by the Principal District Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.335 of 2020, claiming compensation for the death of A.Palanichamy, in an accident that took place on 30.05.2020. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,67,488/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Eight only) with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation. Against which, the appellant / insurer has preferred this appeal. 3. A brief substance of the claim petition is as follows: On 30.05.2020 at about 02.00 p.m., when the deceased Palanichamy was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-58-R-1058 from West to East direction on the left side of the road in Kallimanthaiyam road, near Porulur petrol bunk, a Ashok Leyland (Dost) four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-BF-0335, which came behind the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler and as a result, the two wheeler rider Palanichamy sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in Sri Kumaran Hospital, Oddanchatram and despite treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 27.07.2020. A case came to be registered in Crime No.426 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC against the driver of the four wheeler. The legal heirs of the deceased Palanichamy have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.335 of 2020 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the four wheeler driver. 4. The fourth respondent / first respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the appellant / insurer. 5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the insurer is as follows: The manner of accident as narrated in the claim petition is denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are all denied. The injury caused due to the accident was not the reason for the cause of death. The deceased drove the two wheeler without driving license and without wearing helmet, as such, there was a breach of policy conditions. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The injury caused due to the accident was not the reason for the cause of death. The deceased drove the two wheeler without driving license and without wearing helmet, as such, there was a breach of policy conditions. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant. 6. On the side of the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 8 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On the side of the appellant / insurer, 1 witness was examined as R.W.1 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,67,488/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Eight only) with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation to be paid by the appellant / insurer. Against which, the appellant / insurer has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / insurer would submit that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and as such, the liability cannot be mulcted only against the appellant / insurer. He would further submit that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of accident but the Tribunal, without any evidence, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the higher side and the Tribunal also erred in adding 10% of the income towards future prospects and therefore, the same should be reduced. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants would submit that the deceased had worn the helmet at the time of accident and that the deceased was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident. 9. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, clearly deposed that the deceased was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and they were solely depending upon the income of the deceased. Admittedly, the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants have not produced any materials or evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. It is difficult to reject the argument of the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. It is difficult to reject the argument of the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Nowadays, agriculture coolies and other coolies are earning not less than Rs.300/- per day. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The Tribunal also rightly added 10% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 . 10. With regard to non-wearing of helmet, as per Ex.P.2-Discharge Summary, the deceased has sustained injury on the right side of scalp and hemorrhagic flow over the right side of scalp temporal (scalp contusion). It is seen that the deceased died due to head injuries. Therefore, under such circumstances, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M.Ravikumar and another (C.M.A.No.1739 of 2016 dated 27.06.2018), 10% has to be deducted from the total compensation for not wearing the helmet at the time of accident. After such deduction, the compensation is reduced to Rs.5,10,740/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty only) (Rs.5,67,488/- - Rs.56,748/-). 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed and the compensation awarded at Rs.5,67,488/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Eight only) is hereby reduced to Rs.5,10,740/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty only). The appellant / insurer is directed the deposit the modified award amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, excluding the default period, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.335 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Dindigul, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants are entitled to the following shares together with interest:- The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares together with interest and costs, less any amount already withdrawn, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. If the amount was already deposited, the balance amount shall be withdrawn by the appellant / insurer. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.