JUDGMENT :- 1. The Appellant/Second Respondent/Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition as against the Award, dated 18.02.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2003, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Virudhachalam. 2. The First Respondent/Claimant has filed the M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2003 on the file of Learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court-III (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Virudhachalam claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the death of her second son, Sadick Basha. 3. The Learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court-III (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Virudhachalam while passing the Award in M.C.O.P.No.386 of 2002 (on the file of the Learned Sub Court, Virudhachalam earlier-later transferred to the file of Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Virudhachalam and taken on file as M.C.O.P.No.304/2003), upon analysis of Oral and Documentary evidence and also on consideration of available materials on record, has come to a resultant conclusion that the offending vehicle viz., the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TDF 5236 has been duly covered by the valid policy at the time of accident and further, the Tribunal has also opined that the driver of the offending Ambassador Car has been responsible for the happening of occurrence because of his fast and negligence act of driving and only because of the driver's act, the deceased Sadick Basha has expired. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also granted a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as total compensation to the First Respondent/ Claimant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the same has to be paid by the Appellant/Insurance Company, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the Award and accordingly, passed an Award to that effect. 4. Being dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the Second Respondent/Insurance Company has projected this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court as an aggrieved Appellant. 5. The point that arises for rumination in this Appeal is: Whether the Award dated 18.02.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.304/2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge – Fast Track Court III (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Virudhachalam is a proper and valid one in the eye of law? Contentions, Discussions and Findings on point: 6. 5. The point that arises for rumination in this Appeal is: Whether the Award dated 18.02.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.304/2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge – Fast Track Court III (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Virudhachalam is a proper and valid one in the eye of law? Contentions, Discussions and Findings on point: 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Second Respondent (Insurance Company), the Award of the Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2003 dated 18.02.2004 is an improper and irregular one and moreover, the Tribunal has not taken into account of the fact that the accident had not been established through any independent witness. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, submits that the Claims Tribunal has not taken into account of the fact that the First Respondent/Claimant never produced any Documentary proof to prove the status of Employment and earning of the deceased son Sadick Basha. 8. It is the further contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Donat Louis Machado and others versus L.Ravindra and others ( 1998 (8) SCC 633 ), if the claimants are parents, the 2/3rd amount has to be deducted (on the arrived amount by applying the multiplier) and 1/3rd amount alone has to be awarded towards Loss of Earnings of the Deceased. 9. Expitiating his submissions, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company contends that the Claims Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 while working out the compensation to which the First Respondent/Petitioner is not entitled to and the same is not sustainable in law in the absence of proof of income and age of the Claimant. 10. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company projects a legal plea that as per decision in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay versus Shri Laxman Iyer and another (2004-2-L.W.15), if the deceased was a bachelor, the Multiplier should not exceed 10 and since the deceased was a Bachelor, the Claims Tribunal arbitrarily and improperly adopted the multiplier as 15 as per Schedule II of Motor Vehicles Act. 11. In any event, the contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant is that the quantum of compensation awarded to the First Respondent/Claimant is on the excessive side. 12. 11. In any event, the contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant is that the quantum of compensation awarded to the First Respondent/Claimant is on the excessive side. 12. In short, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned Award in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2003 dated 18.02.2004 based on presumption and surmises. 13. On going through the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration the Ex.P1, F.I.R. and in the said report, the complainant is one Arumugam. Further, the name of the accused is mentioned as driver of Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TDF 5236 and the name of the driver of the car is mentioned as Palani. As seen from Ex.P4, the Judgement of the Criminal Court, the driver of the offending vehicle Ambassador car bearing No.TDF 5236 viz., Palani has pleaded guilty and hence, he has been found guilty. Acceptance of guilt and being found guilty by the Criminal Court viz., The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is clearly an adverse circumstance, which goes against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report Ex.P2 also pointed out at the time of occurrence on 09.07.2001, the offending vehicle Ambassador car possesses a vehicle fitness certificate for the period from 30.04.2001 to 29.04.2002 and the driver of the offending vehicle-II possessed valid licence till 01.01.2002. Moreover, the offending vehicle Ambassador car's insurance has remained valid upto 22.03.2001. Even in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, it is mentioned that the accident has occurred due to improper functioning of the Brakes. At this stage, it is to be pertinently point out that it is the duty of the owner of the offending vehicle viz., the Second Respondent/First Respondent to maintain the car in a proper and road worthy condition which includes the proper unkeep and maintenance of the offending vehicle. From the very fact that the Brakes have not properly functioning at the time of accident and because of that, the accident has occurred, it is a clear case where the owner of the offending vehicle/Ambassador car viz., the Second Respondent/First Respondent has not maintained the car properly and that too in the road worthy condition. From the very fact that the Brakes have not properly functioning at the time of accident and because of that, the accident has occurred, it is a clear case where the owner of the offending vehicle/Ambassador car viz., the Second Respondent/First Respondent has not maintained the car properly and that too in the road worthy condition. Hence, as seen from Ex.P1-F.I.R., Ex.P4-Criminal Court Judgement and also Ex.P2- Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, for the happening of occurrence on 09.07.2001, the driver of the offending vehicle Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TDF 5236 viz., Palani is squarely responsible for the happening of the occurrence and in this regard, this Court is in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal and the point is answered accordingly. 14. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation to be awarded, it is quite evident that the First Respondent/Claimant has claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of her second son Sadick Basha. The First Respondent/Claimant's son Sadick Basha has been aged 24 years at the time of accident. The said Sadick Basha during his life time has been earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month by doing the avocation of electrician. In the claim petition, the age of the deceased Sadick Basha has been mentioned as 24. However, in the Postmortem Report-Ex.P3 dated 09.07.2001, the Sadick Basha's age is mentioned as 22. 15. The First Respondent/Claimant in her evidence as P.W.1 has stated that her age is 45 years. Her first son is aged about 28 years. The elder brother of the deceased Sadick Basha is employed in Saudi Arabia. P.W.3, Kumar has deposed that along with him, deceased Sadick Basha worked as a Electrician under one Balaram at Mangalampettai and the said Sadick Basha has been receiving a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. However, in this regard there is no documentary proof on the side of the First Respondent/ Claimant. The said Kumar, P.W.3 has been employed under Balaram, with whom the deceased Sadick Basha also worked. 16. Based on the Post-mortem Report Ex.P3, dated 09.07.2001, the Claims Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased Sadick Basha at the time of his death as 22, though in the claim petition, her mother viz., the First Respondent/Claimant has mentioned the age of her son as 24 at the time of accident. 16. Based on the Post-mortem Report Ex.P3, dated 09.07.2001, the Claims Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased Sadick Basha at the time of his death as 22, though in the claim petition, her mother viz., the First Respondent/Claimant has mentioned the age of her son as 24 at the time of accident. Based on the documentary proof viz., Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate, this Court determined the age of the deceased Sadick Basha at the time of his death as 22. 17. The Claims Tribunal has seen the demeanour of the witness P.W.1(Mother of the deceased Sadick Basha) and on appearance has found that she is of 45 years of age. As per Schedule II, Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Multiplier to be adopted for 45 years age is 15. Hence, the Claims Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15. However, the Claims Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased Sadick Basha as Rs.3000/-. Towards personal expenses, it has deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. Hence, towards dependency, it has determined a sum of Rs.2000/- per month. Per year the same works out to Rs.2,000x12=Rs.24,000/-. If the multiplier of 15 is adopted viz., Rs.24,000 x 15, then, the dependency works out to Rs.3,60,000/- and this sum has been determined as a compensation payable to the First Respondent/Claimant by the Appellant/Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection. Thus, in all the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as a total compensation payable to the First Respondent/Claimant by the Appellant/Second Respondent along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. Also it has awarded a sum of Rs.10,500/- as First Respondent's Advocate fee. 18. The Learned counsel for the First Respondent/Claimant cites the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Mohan and others (2010(1) TN MAC 175), wherein this Court has held that in a case of death of a deceased aged 21 wherein, the Claimants/Defendant's viz., the Father's age is 56 Mother's age is 45 years and two brothers, the multiplier of 17 has been adopted. 19. Ltd. versus Mohan and others (2010(1) TN MAC 175), wherein this Court has held that in a case of death of a deceased aged 21 wherein, the Claimants/Defendant's viz., the Father's age is 56 Mother's age is 45 years and two brothers, the multiplier of 17 has been adopted. 19. He also relies on the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore versus Saraswathi and others (2010 (2) TN MAC 98), wherein in a case of deceased being 28 years and the Claimants being mother aged 50 years and father aged 70 years etc., the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal has been found to be correct one. 20. This Court aptly points out the observation of Lord Morris in 1963(2) All ER 625 which runs as follows: "Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But, the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered or shattered." 21. Also this Court worth recalls the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Versus Syed Ibrahim and Others (2007 AIR SCW 6197 at page 6199, 6200) wherein at paragraph 6, it is laid down as follows: "6.There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement,but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing, but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents." 22. Further, Edmund Davies L.J. in (1970) 114 Sol.Jo.193 has observed that 'It is the manifest duty of the tribunal to give as perfect a sum as was within its power' 23. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents." 22. Further, Edmund Davies L.J. in (1970) 114 Sol.Jo.193 has observed that 'It is the manifest duty of the tribunal to give as perfect a sum as was within its power' 23. Also, this Court aptly points out the following decisions: (a) In Kashmir D.Gudinho and another Versus Kulkarni and others ( 1998 ACJ 1427 ), 'in respect of the deceased electrician aged 27 years whose income has been Rs.1,087/-per month, the multiplier of 13 has been adopted and a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- has been awarded.' (b) In Kamala Devi Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Another (2004 III ACC at page 335), 'in respect of the deceased electrician aged about 29 years, whose monthly income has been Rs.3,000/- per month, the multiplier of 18 has been adopted and a sum of Rs.4,36,500/- has been awarded' (c) In Reeta Mical and others Versus Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another ( 2003 ACJ 473 ) 'in respect of the deceased electrician aged 30 years, whose monthly income has been Rs.4000/- per month, the multiplier of 17 has been adopted and a compensation of Rs.3,05,100/- has been awarded' 24. Also, this Court worth recalls the decision in 2004 (2) TAC 961 wherein 'in respect of deceased employee aged 22 years whose income has been Rs.3274/- per month, the multiplier of 15 has been adopted and a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs has been awarded'. 25. From the aforesaid decision and applying same to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, this Court safely concludes that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Claims Tribunal, while determining the age of Sadick Basha as 22 is a correct one. On that basis, it has arrived at a proper conclusion. In any event, the quantum of compensation determined by it to the First Respondent viz., Rs.3,75,000/- as total compensation payable by the Appellant/ Second Respondent/Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the filing of petition till date of realisation etc., is not an excessive, and arbitrary one. Per contra, it is a Fair, Just, equitable and a reasonable compensation, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Per contra, it is a Fair, Just, equitable and a reasonable compensation, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Looking at from any point of view, the impugned Award passed by the Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality. Viewed in that perspective, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition fails. 27. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the impugned Award dated 18.02.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Virudhachalam is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 28. Earlier in C.M.P.No.11624 of 2005, this Court has made the interim stay granted on 02.08.2005 as absolute subject to the condition that the First Respondent/Claimant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount awarded together with proportionate interest and entire costs, without furnishing security. Further the balance amount has been ordered to be invested in any Nationalised Bank proximate to the place of the residence of the First Respondent/Claimant initially for a period of three years and renewable thereafter pending disposal of the appeal etc., The said C.M.P. has been closed on 06.07.2006. 29. The First Respondent/Claimant is at liberty to withdraw the 50% of the Award amount etc. available to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Virudhachalam, by filing necessary payment out application before the Claims Tribunal as per Rule 161, 163 of Civil Rules of Practice. It is made clear that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to all the parties while disposing of the Interlocutory Application with regard to the payment of money. In any event, the Interlocutory Application for payment out will have to be disposed of by the Claims Tribunal, within a period of ten days from the date of filing, by the First Respondent/Claimant. The parties are directed to abide by the direction of this Court and all of them are directed to extend their co-operation to the Claims Tribunal in disposing of the application within the time frame determined by this Court.