Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 28.11.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second 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: On 08.05.2003, at about 6.00 hours, the deceased Kuppan fixed a cinema wall postage near Forest Bungalow ie.Salem in Harur main road at that time the Toni Travels mini bus bearing registration No.TN74 Y8289 belonging to the first respondent and being the insured with the second respondent, had driven by its driver towards Harur from Salem side, in a rash and negligent manner without observing the rules and regulations of the road and at high speed, dashed against the deceased Kuppan and his cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased head injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini bus. The Pallipatti Police has registered a case against the driver of the said bus in Crime No.122/2003 under section 304(A) of I.P.C. 4. The petitioners are all dependants on the income of the deceased. The first respondent as the owner of the mini bus and the second respondent as the insurer of the vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with 12% interest. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that it is not proved that the driver of the first respondent drove the mini bus bearing registration No.TN74 Y8289 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that it is not proved that the driver of the first respondent drove the mini bus bearing registration No.TN74 Y8289 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is not true that on 08.05.2003, at about 06.00 a.m. the deceased Kuppan was proceeding on his bicycle to paste Cinema wall posters near Forest Bungalow in Salem to Harur main road, at that time, the Toni Travels mini bus bearing registration No.TN74 Y8289 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased Kuppan. As a result of which, the deceased sustained head injuries and died on the spot. On the other hand, it is submitted that the deceased Kuppan abruptly crossed the road from the left to the right side without observing the mini bus coming on the road and driver of the bus in spite of applying the brakes, the deceased Kuppan involved himself in the accident and hence the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein are not the legal heirs of the deceased Kuppan. It is alleged in the petition that the first and second petitioners are the brother and sister of the deceased and the third, fourth and fifth petitioners are the daughters of the first petitioner, who is said to be the brother of the deceased Kuppan. The petitioners have not filed any legal heir certificate as proof of their bonafides. The petitioners 3rd to 5th are the married daughters of the alleged brother of the deceased Kuppan and they are living with their husbands and their children and they will not be a legal heirs of the deceased Kuppan, as per Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners are not depending upon the deceased in anyway. This petition is filed by the petitioners to secure unlawful gain. The second respondent further submitted that they do not admit the income, age and occupation of the deceased Kuppan. Further, the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is excessive. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition with costs. 7. The petitioners are not depending upon the deceased in anyway. This petition is filed by the petitioners to secure unlawful gain. The second respondent further submitted that they do not admit the income, age and occupation of the deceased Kuppan. Further, the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is excessive. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition with costs. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Did the accident happen due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- as prayed for? (iii) What relief are the petitioners entitled to? 8. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 PW2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the respondents side no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 9. On 08.05.2003, at 06.00 p.m. on the Salem to Harur main road, near Forest bungalow, when the deceased Kuppan was pasting Cinema Posters on the wall, at that time, the first respondents mini bus bearing registration No.TN74 Y8289, which is insured with the second respondent Insurance Company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. But, the second respondent had denied the allegation, further they stated that the deceased all of a sudden, without following traffic rules had crossed the road and dashed against the bus as such, the accident had happened. PW2, one Kumar had adduced evidence stating that the offending mini bus had been driven by the respondents driver and dashed against the deceased. The PW1 had marked Ex.P1-FIR, which was registered against the driver of the mini bus. Considering the evidence of the PW1, PW2, RW1 and Ex.P1-FIR, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus driver. As such, the first and second respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 10. The PW1 further deposed evidence stating that the deceased Kuppan was the brother of the first petitioner. At the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of pasting cinema posters besides milk business. All of a sudden the said Kuppan died in the accident, as such, the petitioners were deprived of this income. At the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of pasting cinema posters besides milk business. All of a sudden the said Kuppan died in the accident, as such, the petitioners were deprived of this income. The PW1 deposed evidence stating that for claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, legal heir certificate is not required. After considering this evidence, the Tribunal decided that the petitioners were deprived of the income of the deceased. 11. The PW1 had marked Ex.P2-Post mortem Report, Ex.P3-Insurance Policy and Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Accident Report. The Tribunal had fixed the age of the deceased as 50 years, on the basis of the post-mortem report. Considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the deceased was carrying out cinema poster work and milk business. As such, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month and adopted a multiplier of 11 and awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-after deducting 1/3rd share. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- under the head of funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.2,500/-under the head of loss of his estate. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-as compensation to the petitioners, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondents to deposit the compensation award amount within a period of one month into the Court, in turn the said amount to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest. 12. Aggreived by the said award and decree dated 28.11.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, the second respondent has filed the above appeal to set aside the compensation amount. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the claimants have not produced legal heir certificate. The claimants 2 to 5 are married and settled into separate families. The learned counsel further argued that from the personal expenses of the deceased, 50% has to be deducted instead of 1/3rd. The Tribunal without any documentary evidence had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. 14. The claimants 2 to 5 are married and settled into separate families. The learned counsel further argued that from the personal expenses of the deceased, 50% has to be deducted instead of 1/3rd. The Tribunal without any documentary evidence had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the Tribunal had not awarded compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. Further, the funeral expenses of Rs.2,500/- is on the lower side. The Tribunal, suo moto fixed the income as Rs.2,500/- per month is on the lower side. The quantum of compensation is not an excessive one. As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.2,500/- as the income of the deceased is erroneous. Hence, this Court fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/-per month, after deducting personal expenses and adopted a multiplier method and awarded a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- under the head of loss of income. This Court grants a sum of Rs.40,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection for the five claimants (each to receive Rs.8,000/-). This Court grants a sum of Rs.7,000/- for loss of estate and for funeral expenses, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000/-. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation amount from Rs.2,80,000/-to Rs.2,50,000/-, which is found to be fair and equitable. 16. On 22.02.2006, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 17. 16. On 22.02.2006, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 17. It is open to the claimant to withdraw their apportioned share amount each to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdraw if any. 18. The appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excessive compensation amount, lying in the credit of the of the M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, after observing necessary formalities before the concerned Court. 19. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 28.11.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.