Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 31.03.2006 in M.C.O.P. No.466 of 2004 passed by the Additional District cum Sessions Court? Fast Track Court No.2, Ranipet. 2. The Tribunal viz. the Additional District cum Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Ranipet in the award dated 31.03.2006 in M.C.O.P. No.466 of 2004 has among other things observed that ‘the driver of the Tractor has admitted the offence before the Criminal Court and as such because of the negligence of the driver of the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent (owner of the Tractor) the incident has taken place and has resultantly passed an award in favour of the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants holding that they are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs and fifty thousand only) as total compensation payable by the Appellant/2nd Respondent-Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization together with cost and lawyer’s fees, etc. and passed an Award. Also, the Tribunal in its award has further held that, if the compensation amount as ordered is not paid by the Appellant/Insurance company, then it has to pay a default interest at the rate of 12% per annum, etc. 3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 have been marked. 4. Being aggrieved against the Award dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.466 of 2004, the Appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal as an aggrieved person. 5. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is whether the Tribunal is correct in passing the impugned award dated 31.03.2006 in M.C.O.P. No.466 of 2004? 6. The Discussion, Contentions and findings on Point: The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance company contends that the Tribunal should not have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and also the admission of guilt on the part of the driver of unregistered Tractor owned by the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent. 7. 6. The Discussion, Contentions and findings on Point: The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance company contends that the Tribunal should not have relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and also the admission of guilt on the part of the driver of unregistered Tractor owned by the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal viz., the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Ranipet has failed to appreciate the fact that the aid accident has occurred due to collision of the unregistered Tractor and Motor Cycle which were proceeding in the opposite direction on the National Highway, ( the Tractor was proceeding towards Chennai from Ranipet and Hero Honda Motor Cycle was coming from Kancheepuram towards Ranipet) and in that event, the driver of both the vehicles equally contributed to the accident and as such, the degree of negligence should have been determined at the ratio of 50% each. But, the Tribunal has committed an error in determining entire negligence against the driver of the Tractor and made the Appellant/Insurance Company as well as the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent liable to pay entire compensation in favour of the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants. 8. A perusal of the Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal grounds goes to show that the Appellant/Insurance Company has taken a plea that the Tribunal has not correctly decided in awarding the entire compensation against the Appellant. But, the Appellant/Insurance Company has taken a specific defence that the 5th Respondent/owner of the tractor has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. Furthermore, the said Tractor has not been registered within the stipulated period for which, oral evidence has been let in through the Development Officer of the Appellant/Insurance Company namely R.W.1 and also Exs.R.1 and R.2 documents have been marked. 9. Proceeding further, the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month by lending his lorry for hire. 10. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal incorrectly has applied the multiplier of 15 as per the provisions of the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles ct, 1988 and also after taking into account the age of the deceased as 39 years. 11. 10. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal incorrectly has applied the multiplier of 15 as per the provisions of the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles ct, 1988 and also after taking into account the age of the deceased as 39 years. 11. Lastly, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award any penal interest much less at the rate of 12% per annum, in case, the Appellant/Insurance Company fails to deposit the award amount. 12. In short, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice. 13. Per contra, it is the contention of he learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants that the Tribunal viz. the Additional District cum Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Ranipet has taken into account the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the oral evidence and documentary evidence let in by the parties and has justly and fairly awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization, etc. As such, the same need not be disturbed by this Court, at this distance of time, sitting in Appellant Jurisdiction. 14. Admittedly, the Respondents 1 to 4 /Claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Veeraraghavan. The date and time of accident is 27.5.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. At the time of accident and death, the deceased Veeraraghavan was aged 39 years. The occupation of the deceased Veeraraghavan, at the time of death, has been mentioned as Manager cum Lorry owner, Agriculturist and also brick chamber business. His monthly income in the Claim Petition has been mentioned as Rs.20,000/-. 15. The case of the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants is that on 27.5.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., Veeraraghavan (deceased) was traveling in his Motor Cycle along with his friend as a Pillion Rider near Vanian Chaithram in Madras Bangalore Trunk Road towards Western side and from the Eastern side, an unregistered Tractor bearing Chasis No. EVC 288 C. No.288 belonging to the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent in a rash and negligent manner came very speedily and dashed against the Motor Cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries, Later, he was taken to the Government Hospital. Walajapet for providing first and treatment and after providing the said treatment to him, he was advised by the Doctor to go to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and he was admitted in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and the Doctors informed that he was dead. 16. The driver, 5th Respondent/1st Respondent (owner of the Tractor) is responsible for causing the accident. Since the Appellant/2nd Respondent is the Insurer of the offending vehicle, the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent and the Appellant/2nd Respondent are liable to pay the compensation to the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants jointly and severally as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent 1 to 4/Claimants. 17. Admittedly, as against the Tractor driver (owner of the Tractor) the 5th Respondent/1st Respondent, a Criminal case in Crime No. 197 of 2001 has been registered under Sections 279, 238 and 304-A of IPC by Kaveripakkam Police Station. The driver of the Motor Cycle, Ganesan has been examined as P.W.2 before the Tribunal. The wife of the deceased Shanthi has been examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 (the wife of the deceased Veeraraghavan) has not witnessed the accident. Therefore, she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Further, P.W.2, who has driven the Motor Cycle, in which, the deceased Veeraraghavan has traveled on the ill fated day, has been examined before the Tribunal. In his evidence as P.W.2, he has deposited that on 27.5.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. he has been proceeding from Kancheepuram to Ranipet in Motor Cycle and when the Motor Cycle has neared the place of Vaniyan Chaithram in Bangalore Main Road, at that time, one unregistered Tractor which has come from the Western side has dashed against his Motor Cycle. As a result of which, he sustained fracture on his left hand, left shoulder and sustained injuries all over the body. Consequently, the Pillion Rider, (decease Veeraraghavan) has fallen down from the Motor Cycle and died in spite of medical treatment. 18. Also, P.W.2 stated that (the deceased Veeraraghavan) has earned an monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. 19. In the case on hand, the Tractor driver has admitted his guilt before the Criminal Court as per judgment in C.C. No.70 of 2001 dated 17.9.2001 on the filed of the learned Judicial Magistrate N.H. Wallajah. The fact that the driver of an unregistered Tractor viz. 19. In the case on hand, the Tractor driver has admitted his guilt before the Criminal Court as per judgment in C.C. No.70 of 2001 dated 17.9.2001 on the filed of the learned Judicial Magistrate N.H. Wallajah. The fact that the driver of an unregistered Tractor viz. Vinayagam has been fined in C.C. No.70 of 2001 as per the judgment dated 17.9.2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajah, Indeed, the imposition of fine of Rs.4,300/-upon the said driver has not been disputed by the Appellate/Insurance Company. Therefore, by placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.2 and also in view of the fact that the driver of the unregistered Tractor has been found guilty by the Criminal Court wherein he has been fined, this Court, comes to an inescapable conclusion that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligence driving of he Tractor driver and the point is answered accordingly. 20. Coming to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Respondents 1 to4/Claimants in the Claim Petition have claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the husband of the 1st Respondent/1st Claimant and children of the other Claimants. 21. It is to be pointed out that a compensation cannot be granted on the basis of evidence of one Claimant as per the decision of Managing Director v. R.P. Mandi, ILR 2003 Kar. 2459. 22. This Court points out that the dete4rmination of compensation for loss of a human life is a difficult task and there are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement. Hence the conspectus of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or other splendour of Stars beyond the reach of a person as per decision of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Syed Ibrahim and Others, 2007 (II) SCC 512 at page 515. 23. This Court worth recalls the decision of Thumribai and Others v. Kamal Urav and Others, 2002 (1) ACJ 524, at 525 wherein at paragraph 6 it is held as follows: “This question is whether just compensation has been paid in this case. We find that the Tribunal has committed error in deciding this aspect of the case with the result that just compensation has not been awarded. Evidence discloses that deceased was earning Rs.40 by way of labour and Rs.80 as a carpenter. We find that the Tribunal has committed error in deciding this aspect of the case with the result that just compensation has not been awarded. Evidence discloses that deceased was earning Rs.40 by way of labour and Rs.80 as a carpenter. It appears that sometimes he used to work as a labourer and sometimes as a carpenter. Since the same person cannot work both as a labourer and as a carpenter. However, it would not be unreasonable to fix his daily earning at Rs.50 and monthly Rs.1,500/-. There is no evidence to show how much the deceased was spending on himself and how much on the family. After deducting Rs.300/- for spending on himself, the dependency comes to Rs.1,200 per month. The proper multiplier in this case should be 16. Thus calculated, the compensation payable in this case comes to Rs.1,200 x 12 x 16 = Rs.2,30,400/-. The Claimants would also be entitled to Funeral Expenses of Rs.2,000/- and conventional amount of Rs.10,000/- for Loss of Expectancy of Life taking the total to Rs.2,42,400/-. This amount of compensation of Rs.2,42,400/- will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Claims Tribunal, payable from the date of Application till realization. The said amount shall be paid within three months”. 24. It is mentioned in the Claim Petition by the Claimant that the deceased Veeraraghavan at the time of his death, has been owning two lorries and he has been the Manager cum lorry owner, Agriculturist and doing brick chamber business. His monthly income has been mentioned as Rs.20,000/- per month. His age has been mentioned as 39 at the time of his death in the Claim Petition. P.W.1 (the wife of the deceased Veeraraghavan) in her evidence has deposed that at the time of her husband’s death, he has been aged 39 years and as seen from Ex.P.5, the said Veeraraghavan prior to his death has entered into an agreement with a Sugar factory and has been running lorry on agreement basis. The fact that the deceased Veeraraghavan ha been supplying lorry to the Sugar factor on the basis of agreement/contract is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also from Ez.P.5. the list showing the agreement/lorry rent. The fact that the deceased Veeraraghavan ha been supplying lorry to the Sugar factor on the basis of agreement/contract is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also from Ez.P.5. the list showing the agreement/lorry rent. Even though in the Claim petition, the income of the deceased Veeraraghavan has been mentioned as Rs.20,000/- per month, the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants have not produced any evidence like Income Tax return or any other Salary Certificate to prove the income earned by the deceased during his life time at the time of occurrence. Since the deceased Veeraraghavan has been the owner of two lorries during his life time, one can safely conclude that hw would have earned not less than a sum of rupees 6,000/- per month and if 1/3rd therein a sum of Rs.2,000/- is deducted towards his personal expenses, then he would have contributed Rs.4,000/- towards his family namely for the welfare of the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants and as such, this Court determines that the monthly dependency of his family has been at Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the deceased Veeraraghavan, at the time of his death, has been aged 39 years, then the proper multiplier will be 15. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased Veeraraghavan works out to Rs.48,000/-(Rs.4,000/- x 12). For 15 years, the same works out to Rs.48,000 x 15 = 7,20,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and towards Funeral Expenses, it has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and in all it has awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants payable by the Appellant/Insurance Company together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition fill the date of realization, etc. The lawyer’s fee has been determined as Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal. In a case of death, Court is to called upon to award a fair and just compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased and certainly, it is a Herculean Task. No amount of compensation in terms of money payable to the affected can be or substituted to the deceased person. In awarding of compensation certain conjectures are possible. No Mathematical or Scissors like precession can be arrived at in regard to just and fair compensation being determined by the Competent Court of Law. No amount of compensation in terms of money payable to the affected can be or substituted to the deceased person. In awarding of compensation certain conjectures are possible. No Mathematical or Scissors like precession can be arrived at in regard to just and fair compensation being determined by the Competent Court of Law. Admittedly, the object of payment of compensation, as far as possible is to bring back a person to the normal position prior to the occurrence of incident/accident or to replace of like nature, No doubt, money cannot renew a physical frame of a person/ [persons who has/who have been already shottered and battered because of the death of the sole bread winner. But except awarding of compensation, no other way is possible to compensate the family affected by the Death of a person. 25. On going through the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.466 of 2004, this Court unhesitatingly, comes an inevitable conclusion that the award of compensation to the Respondents 1 to4/Claimants payable by the Appellant/Insurance Company together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of realization cannot be said to be an excessive one or arbitrary one in the considered opinion of this Court. But as regards the default interest of 3% (over and above 9% interest), if the award amount is not paid within the period of three months, etc. the same ordered by the Tribunal is not justifiable and valid one based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the considered opinion of this Court. Therefore, this Court set aside the findings of the default interest of 3% (over and above 9% interest) awarded by the Tribunal to prevent an aberration of justice. In other aspects, the award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2006 is closed. 26. The parties re directed to works out their remedies in the manner known to law in terms of the judgment in Appeal.