Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Third respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, against the Award and Decree dated 29.08.2005, in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram, awarding a compensation amount of Rs.2,30,250/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensat 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram, in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, dated 29.08.2005, the appellant/third respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The first petitioner is the widow of the deceased, second petitioner is the minor daughter of the deceased, and the third petitioner is the minor son of the deceased. They have filed the claim petition stating that on 23.12.2000 the first petitioner and her husband deceased Late Palanisamy were travelling on their TVS-50 motor cycle from Kangayam to Vellakovil road, near Pagavathipalayam Junction. At that time, the respondents car bearing registration No.TDU.5200 came from west to east at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS motor cycle. As a result, both the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle, the first petitioner herein sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were taken to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein they were admitted for treatment. After three days, ie.26.12.2000 the rider of the motorcycle viz., Palanisamy died in the hospital. After conducting the postmortem, the body was handed over to the first petitioner. 4. The first petitioner submitted that the said accident was registered by the Kangayam Police Station in Crime No.538 of 2000 under Sections 337,338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Based on the first information report, charge sheet was preferred against the driver of the Ambassador Car. The driver pleaded guilty before the Magistrate concerned. The petitioners further submitted that at the time of the said accident, the deceaseds age was 35 years and he was engaged in Power Loom business, and his income was Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner further submitted that the deceased was the only earning member of their family and that all the family members depended upon his income. The petitioners further submitted that at the time of the said accident, the deceaseds age was 35 years and he was engaged in Power Loom business, and his income was Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner further submitted that the deceased was the only earning member of their family and that all the family members depended upon his income. Hence, the first petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation for the loss incurred by her and her two minor children namely respondents 2 and 3 herein. 5. The third respondent/National Insurance Company has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition on various grounds stating that the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TDU-5200 had not informed about the accident to this respondent as per the rules of the Insurance Policy. Further he had not co-operated with this respondent to assess the claim and remained absent. In these circumstances the respondent prayed before the Tribunal to contest the case under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act. The third respondent further submitted that the accident had occurred due to the collision of two vehicles and as such the owner of the moped had to be added as necessary party in this case. Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and this petition has to be dismissed in lemine. The third respondent further submitted that the claimants have to prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The respondent further submitted that at the time of the said accident the rider of the TVS-50 did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The third respondent further submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider, the accident had happened and as such the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the claimant. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely; (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioners are entitled to get? 7. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely; (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioners are entitled to get? 7. On the side of the petitioners two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 namely; PW1-Kannammal; PW2-Devaraj; and 12 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 namely; Ex.P1-First information report; Ex.P2-Rough sketch ; Ex.P3-Postmortem report; Ex.P4-Observation Magazar ; Ex.P5-Motor vehicles Inspectors report; Ex.P6- Panjayat report; Ex.P7-Charge sheet; EX.P8-Judgment copy of the Criminal Court; EX.P9-Death certificate; EX.P10-Legal heirs certificate; EX.P11-Government Hospital receipt; and EX.P12-Burial ground certificate. On the side of the respondents two witnesses were examined as RW1-Venkatesan and RW2Lakshmanan and two documents were marked as EX.R1-National Insurance Company Policy Copy and EX.R2-Rescue particulars. 8. The first petitioner was examined as PW1 and the eye witness of the accident, one Devaraj was examined as PW2. PW1 had adduced evidence that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car. PW1 further adduced that the fire department personnel took the injured and admitted him in Kangayam Government Hospital. RW2 Mr.Lakshmanan, was working in fire department as a fire man. He adduced evidence stating that he witnessed the said accident. Further PW1 marked Ex.P1-First information report; Ex.P2-Rough sketch ;Ex.P4-Observation Magazar; Ex.P5-Motor vehicles Inspectors report; Ex.P7-Charge sheet; and EX.P8-Judgment copy of the Criminal Court. After considering the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 and the respondents evidence R.Ws1 and 2 the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the said accident the compound negligence was involved and as such the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fixed the negligence on the part of the first respondent as 75% and that of the deceased Palanisamy as 25%. PW1 further adduced evidence stating that at the time of accident, the deceased was working in power loom and as such he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. 9. Further PW1 had adduced evidence stating that the deceased age was 35 years, and he was the only earning member of the family. The first claimant further stated that she and her two minor children are dependants upon the income of the deceased. 9. Further PW1 had adduced evidence stating that the deceased age was 35 years, and he was the only earning member of the family. The first claimant further stated that she and her two minor children are dependants upon the income of the deceased. After considering the evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in the absence of any proof of income, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-p.m., and adopted 17 as multiplier. As such the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.2,72,000/-as compensation to the petitioners, after deducting 1/3rd share for the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for love and affection. After deducting 25% for the contributory negligence fixed on the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,250/- as compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 10. Further, the Tribunal directed the third respondent to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest as observed above within a period of two months, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna, Sub Court, Dharapuram. After such deposit is made, the first petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,30,250/-. The second and third petitioners are entitled to get a sum of Rs.50,000/-each. Further, in turn the said apportioned amount of the first petitioner was to be deposited in Punjab National Bank at Dharapuram Branch, for a period of three years, and the apportioned share of award of the second and third minor petitioners were to be deposited in Punjab National Bank, Dharapuram Branch, as fixed deposit, for a period of seven and nine years respectively. 11. Aggrieved by the said award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant/third respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation stating that the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is erroneous. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had grossly erred in rejecting the evidence of Rws1 and 2, wherein it was clearly shown that the occurrence of accident as claimed by the petitioners was not true and correct. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had grossly erred in rejecting the evidence of Rws1 and 2, wherein it was clearly shown that the occurrence of accident as claimed by the petitioners was not true and correct. It was also pointed out that the lower Court failed to see that RW2 was an independent witness and a public official and as such his evidence carried credit worthiness and the rejection of such evidence was not proper. It was also contended that the compensation of Rs.2,30,250/-granted by the Tribunal under various heads was far in excess of what may be justified in the circumstances of the case. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for scaling down of the compensation awarded by the Lower Court. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has wrongly fixed the income at Rs.2,000/-per month and that the deceased was doing Power Hand Loom business at the time of the accident and his income was Rs.5,000/-per month. The learned counsel further argued that it is an admitted fact that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. This evidence is more than enough to establish the negligence regarding the accident. Further, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had deducted 25% out of award amount. As such the Tribunal has granted only a minimum claim to the claimants. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on scrutiny of the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and taking into account the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was correct in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-. Further there is nothing wrong in adopting multiplier method 17, considering that the age of the deceased was 35 years; as such the award of a sum of Rs.2,30,250/-granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is found to be fair and equitable. This Court does not find any discrepancy in the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram. 15. This Court does not find any discrepancy in the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram. 15. On 16.03.2006, the appellant/third respondent had deposited the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Dharapuram. 16. As the accident had happened in the year 2000, it is open to the claimants to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, which is lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 17. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award and Decree, dated 29.08.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.2099 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Dharapuram is confirmed. There is no order as to the costs.