Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 26.06.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, awarding a compensation of Rs.6,12,500/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/third respondent, The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Kadappakada, Quilon, Kerala State, 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 22.11.2003, at about 4.45 a.m. when the (deceased) Jagannathan was standing on the right side of his lorry for checking up his lorry diesel tank, near Cheran Nagar bus stop at Kovilpalayam, on the Pollachi to Coimbatore main road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the said Jagannathan, who died on the spot. A Post-mortem was conducted on the deceased Jagannathan at Government Hospital. 4. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have submitted that the deceased Jagannathan was working as a lorry driver and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month and supporting the petitioners with his income. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second and third petitioners are the minor sons of the deceased and the fourth and fifth petitioners are the parents of the deceased and all the petitioners are solely dependent on the petitioners income. As such, the petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs from all the respondents under under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent is the driver of the lorry, the second respondent is the owner of the lorry and the third respondent is the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842. 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been filed against the first respondent, the driver of the lorry, in Crime No.235/2004, under Sections 279, 337 and 304(a) of I.P.C. by the Kinathukadavu Police Station, Pollachi and it is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi. 6. The first and second respondents did not enter appearance before the Tribunal and were set exparte. 6. The first and second respondents did not enter appearance before the Tribunal and were set exparte. The third respondent, in his Counter, has resisted the claim stating that the petitioners have to prove that the (deceased) Jaganathan died only because of the injuries sustained in the accident; and that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Jaganathan. It was also submitted that the petitioners have to prove that the first respondent had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the said lorry driven by him had been insured with the third respondent. Further, it has been submitted that the accident had been caused only because of the negligence of the (deceased) Jaganathan. The third respondent has also submitted that the claim is excessive and as such has to be dismissed. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent manner and the high speed at which the first respondent had driven the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842? (ii) Are the petitioners entitled to receive compensation? If So, what is the quantum of compensation, which they are entitled to get? 8. On the petitioners side, the first petitioner was examined as PW1; Ganesh Kumar, the eye witness to the accident was examined as PW2 and the owner of the lorry, which had been driven by the deceased Jagannathan, was examined as PW3 and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On the respondents side, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 9. It has been submitted by the petitioners that on 22.11.2003, at 4.45 a.m. when the deceased Jagannathan was driving the lorry bearing registration No.KLB4609 and coming towards Ukkadam, Coimbatore and that when he was nearing Cheran Nagar at Kovilpalayam on the Pollachi-Coimbatore main road, the diesel in the tank of his lorry was used up and the tank became empty. So, the deceased had asked the cleaner of his lorry to purchase diesel and the deceased parked the lorry on the left side of the road. So, the deceased had asked the cleaner of his lorry to purchase diesel and the deceased parked the lorry on the left side of the road. The deceased was standing near the right side of the lorry and at that time, the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and coming from south to north, had dashed against the back side of the parked lorry and also hit the petitioner and as a result of which the petitioner had died on the spot. But, on the respondents side, it has been submitted that the petitioners have to prove that the said accident was caused due to the negligent and rash driving of the first respondent and that it was not caused due to negligence on the part of the deceased Jagannathan. 10. The cleaner of the lorry, driven by the deceased Jagannathan, was examined as PW2 before the Tribunal. The PW2, Ganesh Kumar, in his evidence had deposed that on 21.11.2003 when he and the deceased Jagannathan were coming in the lorry bearing registration No.KLB4609, loaded with timber, from Dindigul to Ukkadam, Coimbatore, and at 4.45 a.m. on 22.11.2003, when the lorry was nearing Cheran Nagar, Kovilpalayam, on the Pollachi-Coimbatore main road, the lorry ran out of diesel. So, the deceased Jagannathan had asked him to procure diesel and that he had procured diesel from a vendor at Tamaraikulam. He had then seen that the lorry had been parked at the mud road on the extreme left of the main road and that the parking lights of the lorry had been switched on, and stones were kept behind the lorry. He had seen the deceased Jagannathan standing along side one Muthuthangam, a timber broker, who had also come with them in the lorry, on the right side of the lorry. He had seen the deceased Jagannathan standing along side one Muthuthangam, a timber broker, who had also come with them in the lorry, on the right side of the lorry. The deceased Jagannathan had asked him to get a screwdriver from the cabin of the lorry and after he had taken the screwdriver and come to the right side of the bus, from the front end of the bus, he had seen the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842, coming from south to north and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the right backside of the parked lorry and had also seen it dashed against the (deceased) Jagannathan. He had further deposed that the (deceased) Jaganathan had died on the spot. 11. The evidence given by the PW2 was inconsonance with the evidence of PW1 as regards the manner of the accident. The PW2, has further deposed that he had given a complaint to the Kinathukadavu Police Station and that based on his complaint, a criminal case has been filed against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842 as Crime No.235/2003, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(a) of I.P.C. In support of his evidence, he has marked Ex.P1, the copy of FIR. Further, on scrutiny of the document marked as Ex.P2, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report on the lorries bearing registration Nos.KLB4609 and KL02 B2842, it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the said lorries. Further, it is seen from the report, that the backside of the lorry bearing registration No.KLB4609 and the front side of the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842 had been damaged, due to the accident. The rough sketch of the accident side prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, after examination of the accident site, had been marked as Ex.P3. It is seen from the scrutiny of Ex.P3, that the accident had occurred only on the extreme left side of the road. The copy of the Charge Sheet filed against the first respondent under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(a) has been marked as Ex.P5. The respondents have not examined the driver of their lorry, the first respondent, to prove that the accident was not caused due to negligence on the part of the first respondent. The copy of the Charge Sheet filed against the first respondent under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(a) has been marked as Ex.P5. The respondents have not examined the driver of their lorry, the first respondent, to prove that the accident was not caused due to negligence on the part of the first respondent. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence given by PW1 and PW2 and after scrutiny of documents marked as Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P5, held that the accident was caused only by the high speed and negligent and rash driving of the lorry by the first respondent. 12. Ex.P4 is the copy of the Post-mortem Report of the deceased given by the Pollachi Government Hospital and Ex.P7 is the Death Certificate of the deceased Jagannathan. It is stated in Ex.P4 that the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of the accident. As such, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 41 years. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 41 years adopted a multiplier of 15, as is relevant under Section 163(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to assess future loss of income to the petitioners. The driving licence of the deceased has been marked as Ex.P8 to prove that the deceased was a lorry driver at the time of accident. It is seen from Ex.P10, the copy of the RC Book of lorry bearing registration No.KLB4609 that the said lorry was owned by PW3, one Mr.Nagaraj. The PW3, in his evidence has deposed that the deceased Jagannathan had been employed by him as a driver and that he was driving the above said lorry for a period of ten years and has further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. In support of this evidence, he had marked Ex.P9, the Salary Certificate. 13. As such, the Tribunal on considering that the deceased had been a lorry driver for a period of 10 years, held that the deceased could have earned a sum of Rs.4,500/-per month in the future. Deducting 1/3rd share from this for his personal expenses, the Tribunal held that the deceased Jagannathan could have contributed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to his family. Deducting 1/3rd share from this for his personal expenses, the Tribunal held that the deceased Jagannathan could have contributed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to his family. As such, the Tribunal assessed the future loss of income to the petitioners as Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.5,40,000/-and granted the same as award to the petitioners. It is seen from Ex.P6, the legal heir certificate that the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal on considering that the first petitioner was only 30 years at the time of accident, granted an award of Rs.25,000/-for loss of consortium, love and affection. The Tribunal granted an award of Rs.10,000/- each to the second and third petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection and granted the fourth and fifth petitioners an award of Rs.10,000/-each under the head of loss of future care. The Tribunal also granted an award of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.2,500/-for loss of estate to the petitioners. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.6,12,500/- and apportioned Rs.1,62,500/- to the first petitioner; Rs.1,50,000/- each to the second and third petitioner and Rs.75,000/-each to the fourth and fifth petitioners. 14. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P3, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report were of the view that the said lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842, driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent had been covered by a policy of insurance for the period valid from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2003, with the third respondent Insurance Company. As such, the Tribunal held that the second and third respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said award to the petitioners and directed them to deposit the above said award with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, within a period of one month from the date of its Order. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of three years and the 1st, 4th and 5th petitioners were permitted to withdraw the interest on their apportioned share of award, once in six months. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of three years and the 1st, 4th and 5th petitioners were permitted to withdraw the interest on their apportioned share of award, once in six months. Further, the Tribunal directed that the first petitioner can also withdraw interest, on the apportioned share of interest on the award and of the second and third minor petitioners, once in six months, until such time they attain the age of a major. The petitioners were directed to pay the balance Court fee due on the award granted to them within a period of ten days from the date of its Order. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.6,125/-. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal has contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the accident was solely caused due to the parking of lorry in the middle of the road, without proper signal and also the negligent act of the deceased in checking the diesel tank on the right side of the lorry, without taking safety measures. Further, the learned Tribunal, after considering the place of occurrence shown in the rough sketch (Ex.P3), which is the middle of the road, ought to have held that the lorry driver had invited this accident due to non-adherence of rules and regulations. Further, it has been contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have disbelieved the evidence of PW3, Mr.Nagarajan and his pay certificate Ex.P9, showing the salary as Rs.6,000/- per month, on the mere ground that no pay register and account books proving the employment and income was produced before the lower Court. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the Tribunal, after considering the FIR (Ex.P1), wherein it was stated that the deceased Jagannathan himself was the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KLB4609, ought to have rejected the entire evidence of PW3, Mr.Nagaraj and his Pay Certificate, P6, regarding the employment of the driver and income of Rs.6,000/-per month as false. Further, it has been contended that even in the claim petition, it has been stated that the deceased Jagannathan was standing on the right side of his lorry to check up his lorry diesel tank and as such the Tribunal should have held that the rashness and negligence levelled against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KL02 B2842 was baseless. 17. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed for setting aside the award and decree dated 26.06.2007, passed by the Tribunal. 18. 17. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed for setting aside the award and decree dated 26.06.2007, passed by the Tribunal. 18. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Judgments made in 2005 (1) TN MAC 200 (DB), Rangasamy Gounder, Pavanambal (Deceased) vs.R.Rajendran and New India Assurance Co., Ltd., the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Ss.166 & 168 – Claim Petition – Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence on record, came to conclusion that deceased died on account of accident which occurred due to his own rash and negligent driving and dismissed petition – Appeal against dismissal – Contention that in view of FIR, Ex.P.1 coupled with evidence of P.W.2, Tribunal was not correct in foisting entire liability on deceased himself – Private complaint filed before Criminal Court after three months from date of accident forwarded to police for investigation and registration of a crime, therefore, Ex.P.1 cannot advance case of appellants in any event – On the contrary, immediately after accident, FIR in Ex.R.1 registered on basis of complaint given by R.W.1 – Earliest document Ex.R.1 supported by evidence of R.W.1, therefore, rightly believed by Tribunal to come to conclusion that accident occurred out of rash and negligence of deceased himself – Tribunal gave valid reason to reject evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.P.1." 2007 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC), New India Assurance Company Limited V. Kalpana and others, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Compensation – Assessment – Multiplier – Multiplier method involves ascertainment of loss of dependency or multiplicand having regard to circumstances of case and capitalising multiplicant by appropriate multiplier – Choice of multiplier determined by age of deceased or that of claimants whichever is higher and by calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield multiplicand by way of annual interest – In ascertaining this, regard should be had to fact that ultimately capital sum should also be consumed up over period for which dependency expected to last – Multiplier – Proper multiplier. Multiplier: 13 – Deceased aged 33 years – Application of multiplier of 17 not in consonance with settled law by Apex Court – Considering age of deceased, multiplier of 13, held to be appropriate." 19. Multiplier: 13 – Deceased aged 33 years – Application of multiplier of 17 not in consonance with settled law by Apex Court – Considering age of deceased, multiplier of 13, held to be appropriate." 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued on two issues namely negligence and quantum of compensation. As per tyre mark shown in rough sketch, the accident happened in the middle of the road. As such, the negligence of the deceased driver is equally responsible for the cause of the accident. The Investigating Officer had failed to register a complaint against the deceased driver of the offending lorry involved in the accident. The multiplier of 15 has been erroneously adopted by the Tribunal in assessment of compensation. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the accident did not happened in the middle of the road but on the extreme left side of the road. As such, only the appellants vehicle driver had been the cause for the accident. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further argued that the Tribunal had carefully scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence let in by either side and had properly come to a conclusion in favour of the claimants. As such, it is a well considered Judgment and wherein no error can be pointed out. The claimants are 5 in number and as such only ¼ has to be deducted from the deceased income to compute award, but the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd from the income of the deceased for assessment of compensation, and as such, the award of Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he has prayed this Court not to interfere/scale down the award granted by the Tribunal. 22. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, vehement arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and citations provided in support thereof by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the view that as per rough sketch/site plan, the accident had happened on the extreme left side of the road. There is a distance of 25 feet from the scene of occurrence to the extreme right of the road and a distance of eight feet only from the scene and occurrence to the extreme left of the road. There is a distance of 25 feet from the scene of occurrence to the extreme right of the road and a distance of eight feet only from the scene and occurrence to the extreme left of the road. As per site plan, the tyre marks clearly reveals that the appellant/respondents vehicle is the offending vehicle. As such, the findings of the Tribunal, regarding negligence issue in favour of claimants is justified. Considering the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, had deducted 1/3 of income of the deceased for his personal expenses and took annual income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/-, on the basis of the Exs.P8, the driving licence of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the age of the deceased was 41 years and hence had adopted a multiplier of 15 to assess compensation and had awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- under the head of loss of income. This Court is of the view that the above said computed award is reasonable considering that there are five claimants and that the year of the accident was 2003. Further, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the first petitioner, for loss of consortium, considering that the age of the widow of the deceased was only 30 years, at the time of accident. For love and affection to the minor children and aged parents, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded, in total; a sum of Rs.5,000/-was awarded for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/-was awarded for damage of property of deceased. This Court considers that the award passed under the heads are fair and reasonable. 23. As such, this Court views that the total compensation of Rs.6,12,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is fair and equitable. Considering that the accident happened in the year 2003, the rate of interest of 7.5% per annum fixed by the Tribunal is also appropriate. 24. Therefore, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal as well as the apportionment of award ie.Rs.1,62,500/- to the first claimant; Rs.1,50,000/- each to the second and third claimants; Rs.75,000/-each to the fourth and fifth claimants, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 25. 25. This Court imposed a condition on 30.02.2008 to the appellant/Insurance Company, to deposit the entire compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore. 26. As the accident happened in the year 2003, it is open to the claimants, to withdraw their apportioned share of award amount together with accrued interest, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, by filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawal, if any. 27. The second and third claimants are entitled to withdraw their apportioned share of award with accrued interest, subject to their attainment of age of major, from the Tribunal. 28. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 26.06.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.489 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.