7.Though the learned counsel for the appellant relying on the evidence of PW1-father of the deceased during cross examination, wherein, PW1 has stated that M/s.Hemanth Export was closed, has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the annual loss of income at Rs.1,00,000/-, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that it is the deposition of PW1 himself during cross examination that certificate relating to closure of M/s.Hemanth Export was not obtained from Income-tax Department and Commercial-tax Department and therefore, it has to be presumed that the company is in existence and ample evidence has been produced through Ex.P12-audit report of M/s.Hemanth Export which proves that the company earned a net profit of Rs.2,66,444/- during the financial year 2007-08. Further, the 1st respondent/minor claimant who is the son of the deceased, lost both his father and mother in the accident and he is under the custody of his grandfather and he continues to be a minor as on today. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that fixation of annual loss of income at Rs.1,00,000/- and the consequential computation of loss of income due to the death of the deceased at Rs.16,00,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Considering the plight of the 1st respondent/minor child who has been under the custody of aged grandparents who have also lost their only son and looking after the minor child without any support, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation.
