JUDGMENT S. Swamikkannu, J. 1. The appellants are the petitioners before the Tribunal, who filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 praying to pass an award for Rs. 35,000/- being the compensation amount on account of the death of the son of the petitioners/appellants in a motor vehicle accident on 20-7-1980. 2. The case of the petitioners/appellants before the Tribunal is as follows: On 20-7-1980 at about 1.30 a.m. the driver of the lorry with crane bearing Registration No. MDC 9447 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and crushed the deceased Perutnal to death on the spot at the G.S.T. Road at Pallavaram and the driver of the vehicle is directly responsible for the accident. The respondent is the owner of the vehicle and hence it is liable to compensation. 3. The respondent died counter denying either rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the crane of the respondent and disputing the age, occupation and daily income of the deceased. It is also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. On the above pleadings, the following two points were framed by the Tribunal for consideration: (1) Whether the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane by the respondent. (2) To what amount of compensation if any the petitioners are entitled? 5. One Sahadevan, the second petitioner, Sampatb and Sekar were examined on the side of the petitioners before the Tribunal as PWs. 1 to 3 respectively. Ex A. 1 dated 20-7-1980, rough sketch has been marked on the side of the petitioners. On behalf of the respondent one Ramaswamy, the driver of the crane was examined. No document has been marked on the side of the respondent. On the consideration of the evidence thus available both oral and documentary, under point No. 1, the Tribunal found that the fact that the body of the deceased was lying in between the front and back left side wheels of the crane would itself clearly go to show that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane by RW 1 and answered this point accordingly. So far as point No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that taking into account all the factors a sum of Rs. So far as point No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that taking into account all the factors a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be a just and proper amount of compensation. In the result, the award is passed for Rs. 10,000/- with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Additional (Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu), this appeal had been preferred by the petitioners/claimants, Lakshmi and Sahadeven, respectively. Lakshmi is the mother of the deceased. The appellant who was examined as PW 1 in this case, is the father of the deceased. The evidence of PW 3 clearly shows that on the date of occurrence at about 1.30 in the night he was returning after witnessing a cinema in Jothi Talkies St. Thomas Mount and was proceeding in the G.S.T. road towards Tambaram in his cycle on the left side of the road. He would further state at that time a crane was coming from the opposite direction and was proceeding towards Madras. The deceased was going on the side of the road in front of the crane and the crane came at a high speed and dashed against the person who was going on the side of the road. RW 1 who is the driver of the crane bearing Registration No. MDC 9447 has stated that in the crane, there was no lights and so the deceased Perumal was going 30 feet ahead of the crane by having a torch light. He would also state that the crane was proceeding only at a speed of 1 k.m per hour and the maximum speed at which the crane can proceed will be 3 k m. per hour. RW 1 has further stated that near the place of impact a lorry came without lights and dashed on the back side of the crane and when he got down and shouted at the lorry driver, the lorry driver overtake his crane on the left side and the lorry only dashed against the deceased Perumal. He has further stated that his crane has nothing to do with the accident. The Tribunal found that this contention of RW 1 is completely a false one. He has further stated that his crane has nothing to do with the accident. The Tribunal found that this contention of RW 1 is completely a false one. RW 1 had specifically admitted in the cross examination that the deceased Perumal was lying in between the left front and back wheel of his crane. If really the deceased Perumal was proceeding 30 feet ahead of the crane definitely the body of the deceased should be in front of the crane. He has further admitted that because of the dash of the lorry on the back of his crane, there were damages to his crane. Even though he would admit that the Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected his vehicle, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector has not been filed into Court. PW 3 has categorically stated that at the time of the accident there were no vehicles excepting the crane. The fact that there were no headlights or any other lights in the crane at the time when it proceeded during night at 1.30 a m. will itself prove the negligence on the part of the crane driver RW 1. Further a case was registered against the crane driver and he was released on bail by the police. RW 1 has not chosen to send for the complaint said to have been given by him before the police to substantiate his contention. If really the accident has taken place as alleged by RW 1 he could have sent for and marked the complaint given by him before the police. The fact that the body of the deceased was lying in between the front and back left side wheels of the crane will itself clearly go to show that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane by RW 1. The Tribunal is correct in having come to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was driven at a high speed and also in a rash and negligent manner by RW 1 and as such the accident had occurred during which time the deceased had been crushed by the vehicle in question. 6, The only point which is very much stressed in this appeal by Mr. 6, The only point which is very much stressed in this appeal by Mr. Viswanatha Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is meagre especially when the evidence available on record shows that an enhanced compensation though not fully as claimed, ought to have been fixed by the Tribunal and the failure on the part of the Tribunal in not having awarded on the basis of the principles of law for determination of the quantum affects the interests of the appellants and that the meagre sum of the Rs. 10,000/- that had been arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be adequate and in accordance with law. This contention raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellants cannot be said to be without substance. It is pointed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the relevant factors that are available by way of evidence and come to the correct conclusion that only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- can be paid as compensation for the death of the deceased in the instant case. 7. Now let us discuss the evidence available on record so far as the quantum is concerned. PW 1 who is the father of the deceased has stated that his son was aged 23 years and he was doing cooly work, during the time of the occurrence. It is true that the appellants have not file any document to prove the age of the deceased. But it is only the appellants who knew the age of the deceased. PW 1 has stated that the deceased was 23 years at the time of his death. There is absolutely no reason for rejecting the said evidence relating to the age of the deceased. Further PW 1 has stated that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 10/- as coolee. In the cross-examination, PW 1 has admitted that in month the deceased would be getting work for about 15 to 20 days. RW 1 has also admitted that the deceased was getting daily wages of Rs. 5/- per day. The petitioners/appellants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. 10/- as coolee. In the cross-examination, PW 1 has admitted that in month the deceased would be getting work for about 15 to 20 days. RW 1 has also admitted that the deceased was getting daily wages of Rs. 5/- per day. The petitioners/appellants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. Even admitting for the sake of arguments that the deceased was earning as a cooli and was giving the amount to his parents after the marriage of the deceased, it cannot be said that he will be contributing his income to his parents. Taking into account all these factors, it is seen that the deceased would have earned not less than Rs. 2000/- per month. Since it cannot be said that he would not be having work atleast for about 20 days in a month, Rs. 10/- as remuneration for the coolee work, cannot be said to be on the high side. Under the circumstances, the deceased would have certainly earned Rs. 200/-. Out of this sum, if he had retained a sum of Rs. 50/-, he would be contributing a sum of Rs. 150/-per month for the maintenance of the family consisting of his father and Ors. If 55 years is taken as a minimum life time of a person living in this part of the Country, certainly he would have lived for another 32 years. Calculating on this basis, the total compensation under this head would come to Rs. 18,000/-. This sum of Rs. 18,000/- will certainly be just and proper amount of compensation that can be fixed in this case. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the decision reported in United India fire and General Insurance Co. v. Sayar Kanwar AIR 1976 Rajasthan, 173. The facts of the said case are not similar to the facts in the instant case. As such the ratio decidendi of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Merely because, the deceased bad been a coolee that does not mean that the amount of compensation has to be paid in a meagre sum without taking into consideration that a coolee may also once become a Maistry or even a Contractor, either a building contractor or a road contractor and as such never it can be said that he would continue as a coolee through his Life. Taking all these factors into consideration, this award of Rs. 10,000/-has to enhanced to Rs. 18,000/- under this head. This enhanced sum of Rs. 8,000/- should be deposited within two months by the respondent with interest at 6% from the date of petition. The appellants are entitled to equal share in the above said compensation that had been awarded now by this Court. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.