Judgment : 1. These civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of seven MACT.OPs. filed by different claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, claiming compensation in various sums in respect of an accident involving two vehicles one a lorry and another an autorickshaw. Various amounts have been awarded by the tribunal and the owner and the Insurance Company have filed the appeals. The details relating to the various appeals are given in a tabular form below: Sl.No Appeal No. MACT.OP No. Name of the deceased Coimbtore Injuries sustained Claim amount Award amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. 1620/95 658/90 Nagarajan As per A-9 Accident Register 3 injuries. A-10 - 7th left rib broken. No proof for disability. Discharged himself against medical advice 3,00,000 60,000 2. 1621/95 12/91 Abdul Kadar Occupation; Running Bakery/No proof of income As per Accident Register (A-4) 4 injuries one simple and three grievous. P-16 Disability Certificate Disability 75% Doctor P.W.4 5,00,000 75,000 3. 1622/95 13/91 Minor Sapna (girl) student 11th Std. A-7 Wound Certificate 7 days inpatient. Bone fracture in Right shoulder. A-17 Disability Certificate. Disability 25% P.W.4 Doctor 1,00,00 50,000 4. 1623/95 (Deceased) 14/91 Deceased -Nasar -Auto Driver Claimants: Father, wife 2 children Fatal 5,00,000 3,66,000 5. 1624/95 15/91 Minor Radhakrishnan Two injuries as per Ex.A-12 wound certificate. No proof disability Injured got himself discharged against medical advice. Doctor not examined 1,00,000 15,000 Sl.No Appeal No. MACT.OP No. Name of the deceased Coimbtore Injuries sustained Claim amount Award amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. 1625/95 16/91 Prabu 7 years old school Fatal 90,000 25,000 7. 1625/95 75/91 (Minor) Sajath aged 7 years 3rd standard student. 3 injuries -two simple one grievous as per Ex.A-8 the Accident Register. Right hand two bones broken. Disability - 25% (P-18) 1,00,000 30,000 3. The accident happened on 110. 1990. A lorry bearing registration No.TDV.9093 dashed against an autorickshaw bearing No.TMR.1201 in which the deceased and the injured were travelling. The accident occurred on Kovai-Pollachi Main Road. .4. Thecase of the claimants was as follows: .On 110. 1990 at about 7.30 p.m. the victims were travelling in the auto from south to north on the left side of the road. A lorry bearing registration No.TDV.9093 dashed against an autorickshaw bearing No.TMR.1201 in which the deceased and the injured were travelling. The accident occurred on Kovai-Pollachi Main Road. .4. Thecase of the claimants was as follows: .On 110. 1990 at about 7.30 p.m. the victims were travelling in the auto from south to north on the left side of the road. The lorry belonging to the first appellant driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the auto driver and one seven year old boy Prabu by name, were fatally injured and the other occupants suffered grievous injuries. The accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the claimants were entitled to be paid compensation in various sums. 5. The second appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter which was adopted by the first appellant/Owner and the lorry driver/third respondent herein, and it was to the following effect: The accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The auto had carried five persons which was illegal and against law and neither the owner nor the driver nor the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. It was also contended that the auto driver did not have a valid licence at the time of the accident and that in any event the amounts claimed were excessive and beyond all proportions. .6. The Insurance Company, with which the auto was insured, was impleaded as the fifth respondent in the petition before the tribunal and it is also a party in the present appeals either as the fourth respondent or as the fifth respondent. It filed a counter contending that it was only the second appellant/ Insurance Company which was liable to pay compensation amounts, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, that the auto had been insured for three passengers and the maximum liability would be Rs.45,000, and over and above that amount, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay, in case, any liability was fastened on it. 7. 7. As regards negligence, the tribunal found that it was only the lorry driver who was responsible for the accident and in coming to that conclusion the tribunal relied on the first information report and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The tribunal also adverted to the crime report - Ex.P-2 -and the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector - Ex.P-3 and also the oral evidence of the lorry driver himself, who, according to the tribunal, admitted to his having seen the auto coming on his right and if only he had applied the brakes, the accident could have been averted. The tribunal also found that it had not been established that the driver of the auto did not have a valid licence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal had over looked the sketch filed in the case which would clearly show that the auto driver had not observed the traffic rules and had driven the vehicle on the right side of the road and brought on the accident. The learned counsel, in any event, submitted that the auto driver had also contributed for the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the auto had carried more than three persons and this was against law and it was possible that because of its over loading it lost track and the accident resulted. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the various claimants submitted that the tribunal had relied on the first information report, the crime report and also the oral evidence of the driver of the lorry, to the effect that he could have adverted the accident if he had applied the brakes and in any event the tribunal had looked into all the aspects fastened the liability on the appellants and no exception could be taken to the same. 10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, with which the auto was insured namely, Oriental Insurance Company, submitted that the tribunal had adverted to the entire materials on record and had pointed out that the lorry driver could have averted the accident, if only, he had promptly applied the brakes and in any event the first information report and other evidence conclusively pointed the finger only towards the lorry driver. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants also made his submission with regard to the quantum and these submissions could be noticed while dealing with the compensation payable. .12. As regards the negligence of the lorry driver, it is seen from the sketch, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the auto had been running on the right side of the road and that it had also contributed to the accident. May be the driver of the lorry could have prevented, the accident particularly when he had admitted to having seen the auto rickshaw and if only he had applied the brakes, the accident would have been avoided. The entire blame, in the instant case, cannot be put against the lorry driver. Equally, the report of the motor vehicles Inspector and the crime report cannot be taken as conclusive, showing the driver of the lorry alone as responsible for the accident. The sketch produced is a clear clue as to how the accident would have happened. I therefore hold that both the lorry driver and the auto driver were together responsible for the accident and the liability can be distributed in the ratio of 60: 40. Thus the finding with regard to the negligence by the tribunal putting the entire blame on the lorry driver is modified and the negligence is held to be on the part of both the lorry driver and the auto driver in the ratio of 60; 40. 13. As regards the claim of Oriental Insurance Company that its liability should be restricted to a maximum of Rs.45,000, it has to be immediately pointed out that the insurance policy on the basis of which the claim is made, has not been marked. It is therefore that its liability cannot be restricted to Rs.45,000 as claimed in its counter. 14. Let us now go to the individual cases. C.M.A.No.1620 of 1995: One Mr.Nagarajan, aged 38 years, had been injured. As per Ex.A-9. Accident Register he had suffered three injuries and as per Ex.A-10 x-ray his 7th left rib had been broken. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no proof of his disability. The tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000 as against his claim for Rs.3 lakhs. As per Ex.A-9. Accident Register he had suffered three injuries and as per Ex.A-10 x-ray his 7th left rib had been broken. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no proof of his disability. The tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000 as against his claim for Rs.3 lakhs. He had claimed that he was treated in Shanmuga Hospital for 15 days and in Kovai Medical Hospital for 20 days and he had incurred Rs.25,000 on this score. He had also claimed that prior to the accident he was getting Rs.5,000 per month and after the accident he had not been able to work that hard, that he had not been able to walk freely, and that he was entitled to be paid Rs.3 lakhs. It is seen that as per Ex.P-9 - extract from the accident register, he had suffered three injuries and he had left the hospital against medical advice. He had also not produced any materials in respect of the nature of the injuries suffered by him and the disability consequent thereto. From Ex.P-10 it is seen that he had to undergo ultrasonic treatment and that his 7th left rib was broken and he had incurred about Rs.2,000 towards purchase of medicine. Inasmuch as there was no adequate evidence to substantiate his claim for Rs.3 lakhs, the tribunal thought it fit to award only Rs.60,000. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the award was on the high side. I do not agree. He had got himself treated in two hospitals and had suffered three injuries and one of the injuries being fracture of his 7th left rib, he must have undergone acute pain, suffering and mental agony. I do not think that the amount of Rs.60,000 awarded by the tribunal is in any way excessive. The award by the tribunal is confirmed. C.M.A.No.1621 of 1995: The claimant is one Abdul Kadar, aged 34 years. He was running a bakery, as the result of the accident he had suffered loss of income and he had not been able to work as before. As per the accident register Ex.A-4 he had suffered four injuries one simple and three grievous injuries. Ex.P-16 is the disability certificate and the extent of permanent disability is given as 75%. The Doctor, examined as P.W.4, has spoken to the disability suffered by the claimant. As per the accident register Ex.A-4 he had suffered four injuries one simple and three grievous injuries. Ex.P-16 is the disability certificate and the extent of permanent disability is given as 75%. The Doctor, examined as P.W.4, has spoken to the disability suffered by the claimant. As against Rs.5 lakhs claimed, the tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000. Having regard to the nature of the injury and the extent of the permanent disability, this cannot be stated to be excessive. This is confirmed. C.M.A.No.1622 of 1995: A minor girl studying in the 7th standard got injured. Ex.A-7 is the wound certificate. It is seen that she was inpatient for seven days and there was a bone fracture in the right shoulder. The disability certificate shows the extent of permanent disability as 25%. P.W.4 doctor has spoken to the disability suffered by the claimant. The tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000 which again cannot be stated to be excessive. If we award Rs.25,000 for permanent disability and the balance towards pain, suffering and mental agony, the sum of Rs.50,000 is just adequate. C.M.A.No.1623 of 1995: The claimants in this case are the father, wife and two children of the auto driver Nasar. The claimants asked for Rs.5 lakhs. The award was Rs.3,66,000. He was 28 years old at the time of the accident. The average income of an auto driver in a busy place like Coimbatore can be fixed at Rs.1,000 per month. Out of which he would have contributed Rs.700 to the family. The multiplicand would be Rs.8,400 and the proper multiplier would be 18. The total towards loss of earning would be Rs.1,51,200. To which, we must add Rs.10,000 to the wife towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000 each to the father and the two children towards loss of love and affection. We must also add amounts towards funeral expenses and transport, it would be Rs.4,000. The total comes to Rs.1,95,200 which according to me would be the proper compensation payable. The tribunal has used a multiplier of 40 years, which is not permitted. The award of the tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,66,000 to Rs.1,95,200. C.M.A.No.1624 of 1995: A minor boy got injured. As per Ex.A-12 wound certificate, two injuries are listed. There was no proof for disability. The boy got himself discharged from the hospital against medical advice and no Doctor was examined. The award of the tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,66,000 to Rs.1,95,200. C.M.A.No.1624 of 1995: A minor boy got injured. As per Ex.A-12 wound certificate, two injuries are listed. There was no proof for disability. The boy got himself discharged from the hospital against medical advice and no Doctor was examined. However, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000 which cannot be stated to be erroneous. The award is confirmed. C.M.A.No.1625 of 1995: A seven year old boy Prabhu studying in a school met with the accident. The claim was for Rs.90,000, but the tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000, which in my view was grossly inadequate. The award should have been for at least Rs.50,000. C.M.A.No.1626 of 1995: A minor Sajath, aged 7 years, was studying 3rd standard, suffered three injuries two simple and one grievous, as per Ex.A-8 -Accident register. Right hand two bones broken and the disability has been certified to be 25% (P-18). The tribunal awarded Rs.30,000, which in my view is rather low. 15. Though the claimant has not filed any cross-appeal or objection having regard to the Bench decisions, reported in The District Collector, Pudukottai v. Neela Bai, (2000)1 C.T.C. 10 and The Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Janardhanam The Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Janardhanam The Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Janardhanam , (2000)2 C.T.C. 272 notwithstanding that there is no cross-objection or appeal, the court is entitled to award just compensation. Accordingly, the compensation awarded is increased by Rs.25,000. 16. Consequently, the appeals will stand allowed to the extent indicated above and the liability to be apportioned 60: 40, the appellants to bear 60% and Oriental Insurance Company, the 5th respondent before the tribunal, to share 40%. The award amounts will carry interest at 12% per annum. No costs.