Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The above appeals are directed against the award dated 3. 2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3072 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. 1. The brief facts are stated as hereunder: The impugned accident had taken place on 15. 2001 at about 15.30 hours in the National Highways near Ponds company, while the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN 22 L 4389 had a head-on collision with a Tata Sumo car bearing Registration No.TN-04-K-0396, which was coming in the opposite direction, resulted in the death of six persons and two minor children got grievously injured. The legal heirs of the deceased persons and the persons who got injured in the impugned accident have filed separate claim petitions claiming compensation against the owner of the Tata Sumo Car and its insurer, alleging that the driver of the Tata Sumo Car, by name, Sekar, came in a very rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction at a terrific speed endangering public safety, dashed against the Tata Indica car, in which the deceased persons and the injured persons were travelling and caused the fatal accident. 2. In the claim petition, viz., M.C.O.P.No.3072 of 2001, filed by the daughter, son and parents of the deceased Venkatesan, they have claimed a compensation of Rs.60 lakhs and restricted it to Rs.40 lakhs, which was resisted by the respondent/insurance company. The Tribunal, after framing the issues and after careful consideration of the materials available on record held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles and hence, apportioned the negligence equally on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles, viz., Tata Indica Car and Tata Sumo Car. The Tribunal determined a sum of Rs.27,21,060/- as compensation and after deduction 50% towards composite negligence, awarded a sum of Rs.13,60,530/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. 2. 3. Challenging the award of the Tribunal both on the grounds of negligence and quantum, the above appeals have been preferred by either parties. 3. 1. The Tribunal determined a sum of Rs.27,21,060/- as compensation and after deduction 50% towards composite negligence, awarded a sum of Rs.13,60,530/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. 2. 3. Challenging the award of the Tribunal both on the grounds of negligence and quantum, the above appeals have been preferred by either parties. 3. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants, with regard to the ground of negligence, vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.5, which is trustworthy and acceptable and fixing the negligence equally on the drivers of the both vehicles inasmuch as the accident took place only when the driver of the Tata Sumo Car overtook the bus going ahead, resulting in the head on collision with the Tata Indica Car, in which the deceased persons were travelling. The learned counsel for the claimants also assailed the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal erred in adopting 10 as multiplier, since even as per the schedule, the proper multiplier would be 16. 3.2. The above contentions of the learned counsel for the claimants were resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, who submitted that the Tribunal had given a clear finding on both the issues and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 1. It is seen that P.W.5, who is the brother of the deceased person, by name Venkatesan, has stated in his evidence that the deceased Venkatesan was driving the Tata Indica car on the date of accident, that he, himself, was travelling in another car behind the Tata Indica car at a distance of 30 feet, that when they were nearing Tindivanam, the driver of the Tata Sumo, which was coming from the opposite direction, attempted to overtake the bus going ahead of it and hence, came to the wrong side of the road and had a head-on collision with the Tata Indica car. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.5 on the ground of delay in laying the complaint stating that if really P.W.5 had witnessed the occurrence, he would have informed the police immediately without any delay and that medical records also do not prove that P.W.5 admitted the injured persons in the hospital and accordingly, held that P.W.5 was not an eye witness and his evidence with regard to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Sumo car cannot be accepted. 5. 2. But, on going through the materials, we find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. It is true that P.W.5 had not given any statement before the police during investigation nor he was cited as a witness before the criminal forum. But, the evidence of P.W.5 that he was travelling in another car behind the Tata Indica car at a distance of 30 feet and that while nearing Tindivanam, the driver of Tata Sumo car coming from the opposite direction attempted to overtake the bus going ahead, which pave the way for head-on collision with the Tata Indica car driven by the deceased Venkatesan cannot be disbelieved, merely for the reason that there is a delay in laying the complaint or for the reason that P.W.5 did not produce the records for admitting the injured persons in the hospital. Hence, we are satisfied that in the absence of any contra evidence to the statement of P.W.5, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 6. 1. The principle of res ipsa loquitur -the thing speaks for itself, is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from the mere fact that accident happened provided character of accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to believe that in the absence of negligence, it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under management and control of alleged wrongdoer. The legal maxim applies to cases where the peculiar circumstances leading to the accident reveal that the negligence of one of the parties is the cause of the event. 6. 2. The legal maxim applies to cases where the peculiar circumstances leading to the accident reveal that the negligence of one of the parties is the cause of the event. 6. 2. When we apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the case on hand, the manner in which the accident had taken place and on whose rash and negligent driving it had happened could be culled out from the site plan marked as Ex.P-7. It shows that the occurrence had taken place in a broad day light at about 3.30 p.m. and in the National Highway, which is undoubtedly sufficient for two vehicles to pass through safely on either side. As seen from Ex.P-7, the accident had taken place in the middle of the road, when the Tata Indica car proceeding from south to north, in which the deceased persons and injured persons were travelling and the Tata Sumo car, coming from the opposite direction, had head-on collision with each other. While interpreting the site plan, Ex.P-7, the Tribunal observed that if the deceased Venkatesan was driving the Tata Indica car keeping left side, there is no necessity for the above car to involve in the accident in the middle of the road. But the Tribunal failed to appreciate that if the driver of the Tata Sumo car had not overtaken the bus and crossed the middle of the road, the accident would have been avoided, which leads to the conclusion that the driver of the Tata Sumo Car had the last opportunity to prevent the accident. 6. 3. The Apex Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, (2003) 8 SCC 731 , at page 738, while applying the doctrine of last opportunity, observed that the said doctrine is said to have emanated from the principle enunciated in Davies v. Mann (1842 (10) M&W 546) which had often been explained as amounting to a rule that when both parties are careless the party which has the last opportunity of avoiding the results of the other’s carelessness is alone liable. However, according to Lord Denning it is not a principle of law, but a test of causation. However, according to Lord Denning it is not a principle of law, but a test of causation. The Apex Court, in the said case, further held that the sample test is, what was the cause or what were the causes of the damage and the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care or in defiance of duty or obligation on the part of the complaining party which conjointly with the other party’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, renders it one to be the result of contributory negligence. 6. 4. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, in the light of the site plan, Ex.P-7, which leads to the conclusion that it is the driver of the Tata Sumo, who contributed more than the deceased, who drove the Tata Indica car, we are obliged to fix the negligence as 70% on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo car and 30% on the part of the driver of the Tata Indica car. 7. 1. With regard to the quantum, even though we see no ground to interfere with the annual loss of dependancy as arrived at by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,68,106/-, with regard to the multiplier adopted, we find that even as per the schedule formula, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, considering the age of the minor claimants, the proper multiplier would be only 16. Accordingly, applying 16 as the multiplier, the total loss of dependancy would work out to Rs.42,89,696/-. When the percentage of negligence, as fixed above, is applied, the insurance company is liable to pay 70% on Rs.42,89,696/-, which figures out to Rs.30,02,787/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, adding to which a sum of Rs.30,02,787/- towards loss of dependency as arrived at above, the total compensation comes out to Rs.30,42,787/- and it is rounded off to Rs.30,40,000/-. 7. 2. Accordingly, we direct the insurance company to paya sum of Rs.30,40,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs and forty thousand only) to the claimants/appellants in C.M.A.No.1403 of 2005 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with the modifications as indicated above. 7. 2. Accordingly, we direct the insurance company to paya sum of Rs.30,40,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs and forty thousand only) to the claimants/appellants in C.M.A.No.1403 of 2005 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with the modifications as indicated above. No costs.