Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/2nd respondent against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP.No:125 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court-II), Gobichettipalayam, dated 24. 2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,82,750/= together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till date of payment of compensation. 2. The appellant/2nd respondent, aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal has preferred the above appeal in CMA.No.772 of 2005. 3. The short facts of the Claim case is as follows:- On 25. 2001, the husband of the 1st petitioner, along with one Sivakumar, travelled in Bajaj M-80 vehicle. They were proceeding from Kamaraj Nagar to Karumandur to hire a Television Set and Deck, since it was not available at Karumandur, they proceeded to Gobichettipalayam in the Bajaj M-80 vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.22-A-8235. They were also accompanied by one Udayakumar, who came in a Sunny Vehicle bearing Registration NO.TN 36-A-3800. The 1st petitioners husband/deceased Thangavelu @ Velusamy and Sivakumar were proceeding in front of Udayakumar. While Thangavelu @ Sivakumar took a turn towards east at Kovvai Pirivu. The bus owned by the 2nd respondent bearing registration No.TN 33-N-1318, came in a rash and negligent manner from east to west, without noticing the vehicle driven by Thangavelu, the bus hit the motorbike and threw away both Thangavelu and Sivakumar and the motorbike got stuck in front wheel of the bus. In the result, both Thangavelu and Sivakumar died on the spot. The said occurrence took place on 25. 2001 at about 10.30 pm., The rashness and negligence of the bus driver was responsible for the accident. The 1st respondent driver namely S. Krishnamoorthy is an employee under the 2nd respondent-Corporation. The bus involved in the said accident is owned by the State Transport Corporation. So, it is exempted from insurance. At the time of accident, the deceased Thangavelu was 26 years old. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the said deceased Thangavelu, the 2nd petitioner Ovia is the minor daughter of the deceased aged about 5 months and the 3rd petitioner Karuppayal is the aged mother of the deceased. All were depending upon the income of the deceased. The deceased Thangavelu, was working as a Mason and was earning Rs.125/- per day. All were depending upon the income of the deceased. The deceased Thangavelu, was working as a Mason and was earning Rs.125/- per day. The aged mother, young widow and 5 months old female baby have lost the deceased Thangavelu in the said accident. The 1st respondent is a driver/employee under the 2nd respondent and so the 2nd respondent/State Transport Corporation is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioners. The said accident was investigated by the Kadathur Police Station after registering a criminal case in Crime No.279 of 2001 on an alleged offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code against the 1st respondent-driver. 4. The 2nd respondent/State Transport Corporation filed their counter statement and resisted the claim petition of the claimants. The 2nd respondent admitted that the 1st respondent was a driver of the State Transport Corporation, but denied that the said accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The deceased Thangavelu and the pillion rider Sivakumar conversed with each other while travelling without noticing the Corporation bus and had driven the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, dashed in front of the bus. Immediately the 1st respondent and Conductor of the bus had given first aid to the injured persons. So the said accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the said deceased and pillion rider Sivakumar. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation. 5. The 2nd respondent has not admitted that at the time of the said accident, the deceased was 26 years old, and earning of Rs.3000/= through mason work. Actually, the deceased was an agricultural coolie and the claim of compensation is excessive. On the fault of the deceased and Sivakumar, the accident happened. Hence, they are entitled to get only a minimum compensation. 6. On the side of the respondents/claimants, 4 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4, namely (i) Veerasamy (ii)Ayyamal, the first petitioner in the claim petition, (iii) N. Udayakumar and (iv) Ammavasai. On the side of the claimants, 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, namely (i) First Information Report (ii) Observation Mahazar (iii) Sketch (iv) Postmortem Report (v) Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report (vi) Charge Sheet and vii) Postmortem Report which has been remarked as Ex.P7. 7. On the side of the claimants, 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, namely (i) First Information Report (ii) Observation Mahazar (iii) Sketch (iv) Postmortem Report (v) Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report (vi) Charge Sheet and vii) Postmortem Report which has been remarked as Ex.P7. 7. The learned Tribunal after considering the facts and documentary evidence available has framed two issues, namely (i) who was negligent in the said accident and (ii) whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, what is the quantum of compensation? 8. In the evidence tendered by the 1st petitioner stated that the said accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus for which a complaint had been lodged with the police and an FIR was registered against the bus driver. But no complaint has been lodged by the driver of the bus against the deceased Thangavel and Sivakumar. 9. As per vehicle inspection report and damages accessed on the front side of the bus, the deceased vehicle has been dragged by the bus for about 30 feet and the indicator lights in the front of the bus and right side of the bus body has been damaged. The Observation Mahazar prepared by the concerned police officer and brake Inspectors Report as per Ex.P5 clearly proves that the said bus driver is the cause for the accident. After the said conclusion, the Tribunal has come to the 2nd issue to decide the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal decided that the motorcycle driven by the deceased Thanavelu @ Velusamys legal heirs are entitled to get the compensation from the respondents. The age of the deceased and his income could not be decided by the learned Tribunal since there were no documentary evidence available. But, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.2000/- per month. On the basis of the Postmortem Report i.e., EX.P.3, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 26 years, and the Tribunal has taken a multiplier of 18 to arrive at the compensation and calculated compensation as Rs.1,75,000/= for the loss of earning. On the basis of the Postmortem Report i.e., EX.P.3, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 26 years, and the Tribunal has taken a multiplier of 18 to arrive at the compensation and calculated compensation as Rs.1,75,000/= for the loss of earning. For consortium, Rs.5,000/-was awarded to the 1st petitioner; for Transport Rs.750/- was awarded and for Funeral expenses Rs.2000/-was awarded, in total a sum of RS.1,82,750/-was awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the compensation petition, till date of payment of compensation. The said compensation was apportioned to the legal heirs as under:- 1) First petitioner was awarded Rs.77,750/=; 2) Second petitioner was awarded Rs.80,000/=; and 3) Third petitioner was awarded Rs.25,000/=. 10. The Tribunal further ordered that the 1st and 3rd petitioners compensation amount are to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank for a period of 3 years; the 2nd petitioners award amount i.e., Rs.80,000/= is to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank, till she becomes a major. The 1st petitioner was permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in 6 months from the 2nd petitioners deposit account as she was the guardian and natural mother of the 2nd petitioner. The Tribunal further ordered that the excess of court fee paid by the petitioner can be received. The Tribunal fixed the legal fee as Rs.6,655/=. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently raised the points in this appeal that the insurer who had insured the Bajaj Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 33 A 8235 has not been impleaded in the claim petition. So the non joinder of the necessary parties makes the claim not maintainable. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly come to a conclusion that only the bus drivers negligence alone has caused this accident and it has not considered the negligence of the deceased in driving his vehicle. The appellant counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.2000/= per month is erroneous and not based on documents. The rider of the said two wheeler did not have a valid driving licence. Due to the negligence of both the drivers, the accident happened and as such this should be treated as contributory negligence and the respondent bus driver alone should not be held for negligence. 12. The rider of the said two wheeler did not have a valid driving licence. Due to the negligence of both the drivers, the accident happened and as such this should be treated as contributory negligence and the respondent bus driver alone should not be held for negligence. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners had claimed Rs.10 lakhs, but the learned Tribunal had awarded only Rs.1,82,750/= which is on the lower side. Further, the deceased is the only bread-winner of the family and all the 3 petitioners are female, one is a young widow, another is her 5 month female infant and the third one is the aged mother of deceased and all were depending on the income of the deceased. 13. Considering the learned appellants counsels grounds in their appeal, and learned counsel for respondents arguments and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that the issue of non joinder of parties does not arise in this case on the basis of observation mahazar, FIR and vehicle inspectors report. Regarding age, there can be no dispute as this was taken as per the postmortem certificate. Regarding the income of Rs.2,000/= fixed by the Tribunal, this court feels that it is a reasonable sum considering that the year of the accident was 2004. Contributory negligence cannot be taken as a ground in this case as no counter complaint was made by the 1st respondents driver to the police station. Further, the 1st respondent has not come forward to establish the contributory negligence before the Tribunal. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. This court feels that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Regarding loss of earning, which was granted as Rs.1,75,000/-, this Court feels it is reasonable on this head. Regarding consortium of Rs.5,000/= awarded by the Tribunal, this court is of the view that it is on the lower side and hence this court enhances the amount under this head to Rs.25,000/=. For transport expenses, the sum awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.750/-and this court enhances this amount to Rs.2,000/-and also enhances the amount under funeral expenses to Rs.5,000/-. Regarding consortium of Rs.5,000/= awarded by the Tribunal, this court is of the view that it is on the lower side and hence this court enhances the amount under this head to Rs.25,000/=. For transport expenses, the sum awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.750/-and this court enhances this amount to Rs.2,000/-and also enhances the amount under funeral expenses to Rs.5,000/-. This court also grants a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head for the loss of love and affection, in total this Court grants an additional sum of Rs.49,250/= to be paid to the petitioners and apportioned as under: (i) 1st petitioner should be paid Rs.20,000/-. The rest of the amount of Rs.29,250 should be paid to the second petitioner (minor) Ovia. The Court further directs that the award granted to the minor i.e. Rs.49,250/-should be deposited in a nationalised banks till she becomes a major. The additional amount of Rs.29,250 will carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 2004 till date of payment of compensation. The Court further directs the appellant to deposit the additional enhanced compensation amount of Rs.49,250/-to the credit of MCOP No.125 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Gopichettipalayam, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the Court fee is to be returned to the claimants. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous appeal C.M.A.No.772 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Gopichettipalayam is modified with the above terms. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.