Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the Judgement and Decree dated 28.1.2005 made in MCOP.No.75/2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Arani. 2. The accident occurred on 19.12.1999 at about 5.30 a.m. in NH5 Road near Dharmavaram Village, Channel, Andhra Pradesh. The deceased Ramesh was driving the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-04-3985 owned by the 7th Respondent and insured with the 8th Respondent and was proceeding to Rajamundri with plastic load. When he was nearing Channel Village, a lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-95-8539 owned by the 6th Respondent and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company collided with the said lorry, as a result of which, both the drivers sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. According to the claimants, who are the parents, son and sisters of the deceased Ramesh, the accident occurred only due the to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry viz. lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-95-8539. They claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- 3. The Appellant Insurance Company, with which the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-95-8539 was insured, denied the averments of the claimants with regard to the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and it was further averred that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for the accident. It is also averred that the claim of the claimants is highly excessive. 4. On behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and PW.2 was also examined to have witnessed the accident. The printed FIR and its translated version were marked as Ex.A1 and A2. The postmortem certificate of the deceased, lorry receipt and the driving license of the deceased were marked as Exs.A3 to A5. On the side of the Insurance Company, RW.1 was examined and the claim form submitted by the owner of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.R1. 5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry driver. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, applied the multiplier of 14 for calculating the loss of dependency of the claimants and arrived at Rs.4,48,056 plus Rs.4000 + Rs.5000 + Rs.2000 towards other non conventional damages and awarded Rs.4,59,056/- as total compensation. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, applied the multiplier of 14 for calculating the loss of dependency of the claimants and arrived at Rs.4,48,056 plus Rs.4000 + Rs.5000 + Rs.2000 towards other non conventional damages and awarded Rs.4,59,056/- as total compensation. Aggrieved against the said award, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Mr.M.Rajasekar, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and that the offending lorry driver was not negligent in driving the lorry. He would argue that PW.2 is an interested witness who alleged himself as a co-driver of the lorry driven by the deceased and the Tribunal ought not to have placed reliance on such evidence. He would submit that both the vehicles have collided against each other viz. head on collusion and in such view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the negligence equally. As far as taking the income of the deceased is concerned, his main submission is that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly income of the deceased Rs.4000/- without any documentary evidence to base such conclusion. 7. On the other hand Mr.P.Seshadri, the learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants supported the award and submitted that the claim of the claimants was supported by PW.2 an eye witness to the accident and there was nothing brought out at the time of evidence to discredit the testimony of PW.2. He would submit that the deceased being a lorry driver engaged in driving for a long distance, his monthly income was rightly taken as Rs.4000/- and the Tribunal adopted the appropriate multiplier in assessing the loss of dependency due to the death of the deceased. The learned counsel relied on a recent judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2011-ACJ-13 (Mohd. Ameeruddin and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that it is normal that the drivers would be paid daily allowance every day, besides salary. 8. The learned counsel relied on a recent judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2011-ACJ-13 (Mohd. Ameeruddin and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that it is normal that the drivers would be paid daily allowance every day, besides salary. 8. The specific case of the claimants is that on 19.12.1999 at about 5.30 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding towards Rajamundry with plastic load in the lorry, the offending lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed and dashed against the lorry driven by the deceased causing fatal injuries to him. PW.1 is the father of the deceased. He is not an eye witness to the accident. Ex.A1 copy of FIR in vernacular language and its translated version had been marked as Ex.A2. 9. The FIR was registered on the report given by the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned village and admittedly, he has not witnessed the accident. He has stated as to what he saw after arriving at the scene of occurrence. It is stated that both the deceased and the driver of the offending lorry were found dead at the wheels of their respective lorry. He had further stated that a person in the offending lorry was seriously wounded and was removed to the hospital. He has also observed that a person was lying dead near the lorry driven by the deceased near the road margin. 10. PW.2 who claimed to be the co-driver in the lorry driven by the deceased had stated that he was seated next to the deceased and saw the lorry coming on the opposite side at a high speed and it dashed against their lorry. He had further stated that he was examined by the police in the hospital and he also sustained injuries in the accident. He has asserted in his evidence that since they had to cover a long distance i.e. from Orissa to Pondicherry, two drivers were necessary to drive such a long distance. During the cross examination, he denied the suggestion made by the Insurance Company that he did not travel as a co-driver in the said lorry. 11. On a careful scrutiny of his evidence, I am unable to find any discrepancy to discredit his evidence. During the cross examination, he denied the suggestion made by the Insurance Company that he did not travel as a co-driver in the said lorry. 11. On a careful scrutiny of his evidence, I am unable to find any discrepancy to discredit his evidence. There is also no evidence brought out by the Appellant Insurance Company to discard the testimony of PW.2 and to come to a conclusion that he did not travel as a co-driver. No suggestion was given to PW.2 that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Ramesh. Though it is claimed by RW.1 that an investigator was appointed and he had submitted a report, no such report was filed before the court. The Investigator has also not been examined. The evidence of PW.2 clearly shows that the driver of the offending lorry was at fault and had driven the lorry at a high speed and dashed against the lorry driven by the deceased. Thus, the claimants have established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry driver. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal and the said finding stands confirmed. 12. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as a driver and was earning Rs.6000/- p.m. Though an attempt was made that the deceased did not have a valid license to drive heavy goods vehicle, but the same was not pressed into service, as Ex.A5 driving license of the deceased shows that he was licensed to drive LMV, HPV and HGV and endorsements to that effect had been made in Ex.A5. 13. There is evidence to show that the deceased was driving goods vehicle from State to State and the accident had occurred when he was proceeding from Orissa State to Pondicherry. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants, in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2011-ACJ-13 (Mohd. Ameeruddin and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another) the monthly income of the driver could be taken as Rs.4000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.2667/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.2700/-. Ameeruddin and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another) the monthly income of the driver could be taken as Rs.4000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.2667/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.2700/-. Taking into account the age of the mother, who was 45 years old, for the age group between 45 and 50 years, 13 would be the proper multiplier and accordingly, if calculated the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,21,200/- (Rs.2700*12*13). Further, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the loss of love and affection, Rs.5000/- for transportation expenses as per the bill to the extent of Rs.4750/- and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,51,200/-. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is reduced to Rs.4,51,200/- from Rs.4,59,056/- as mentioned above. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,59,056/- with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization as detailed below:- The claimants 1 and 2 are each entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- and the claimants 3 to 5 are each entitled to Rs.50,400/- with proportionate interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The claimants are entitled to withdraw their award amounts as apportioned above after giving credit to the amount already withdrawn by them. The Appellant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount with interest. No costs.