Judgment : The third respondent, ie., District S.C. Co-op. Society Ltd., Chittoor in MVOP No.230/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor is the appellant herein. 2. Originally, the claimants who are the wife and son of the deceased, P.Raghava Reddy, (respondents 1 and 3 herein) filed the above OP against the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, insurer of the vehicle and the appellant herein as third respondent, claiming compensation to an extent of Rs.7 lakhs. 3. The facts which led to filing of the appeal are as follows: One P.Raghava Reddy, aged about 43 years was working as driver in SC Corporation in Collector’s Office Compound, Chittoor. He was earning Rs.3,900/- per month as salary, which he was contributing to the family ie., to his wife and sons. According to the claimant, he was also cultivating two acres of land in Thimmireddipalli village and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. On 6-4-1996 at about 9-30 PM the said Raghava Reddy and three others were going in a jeep bearing registration No. ATC 494 from Ponnai to Chittoor on Chittoor-Tiruttani road. When the jeep reached Muthukuru cross, a tractor bearing registration No. AP 03 T 2067 and trailer AP 03 T 2370 belonging to the first respondent in OP came in high speed and dashed against the jeep. According to the claimants, in spite of jeep slowing down and going to the extreme left, the driver of the tractor dashed against it as he lost control over the vehicle. In respect of the above accident, two persons ie., P.Raghava Reddy and R.S. Saravanan died on the spot and two other inmates of the jeep received injuries. Alleging that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-driver of the tractor, a report was given at N.R. Pet police station, which was registered as Cr.No.17/1996 against the owner-cum-driver of the tractor. 4. The first respondent who is the owner-cum- driver filed counter denying the allegations made in the OP. According to him, the driver of the jeep was responsible for the accident as he hit the trailer and tractor. The claimants did not file any succession certificate to prove that they are entitled for compensation. It is further alleged that the compensation claimed is excessive and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, who are liable to pay compensation. 5. The claimants did not file any succession certificate to prove that they are entitled for compensation. It is further alleged that the compensation claimed is excessive and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent, who are liable to pay compensation. 5. The second respondent, who is the insurer of the vehicle-tractor, in OP, filed counter contending that the jeep driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and dashed against the first respondent vehicle. According to him, the liability is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy, subject to the validity of RC, Permit driving licence and other vehicular documents. 6. The third respondent who is the appellant herein filed counter stating that the Raghava Reddy, aged about 45 years was working as driver in the engineering wing of Social Welfare Department and drawing monthly salary of Rs.5000/-. He admits the relationship between the deceased and the claimants is true and correct. According to them, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-tractor and as such, the first and second respondents are liable to pay the compensation. 7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred was due to the rashness and negligence of driver of tractor AP 03 T 2067and trailer AP 03 T 2307? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? 3. To what relief? 8. In support of their case, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. The Insurance company examined R.W.1 and no document has been marked on behalf of the insurance company. 9. Before the commencement of trial, IA No.4/1999 was filed for impleading the District Collector representing the State of Andhra Pradesh as one of the respondents. The said application was dismissed. But this Hon’ble Court by its order dt. 4-8-2001 in CRP No.4594/99 set aside the order of the tribunal and consequently the third respondent was impleaded. 10. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased admitted that she is not an eye witness to the incident but she came to know that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. P.W.2 was working as junior assistant in Collector’s Officer, Chittoor. 10. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased admitted that she is not an eye witness to the incident but she came to know that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. P.W.2 was working as junior assistant in Collector’s Officer, Chittoor. He claimed to have traveling in the jeep, which met with an accident at Muthukuru cross on Chittoor-Tiruttani road. According to him, their jeep was going slowly and tractor coming from opposite direction in rash and negligently and in high speed hit the jeep, which resulted in the death of deceased and Saravanan. P.W.2 who also sustained injuries was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. P.W.2 denies the suggestion that the deceased Raghava Reddy was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He admitted that he did not see what was loaded in the tractor. R.W.1-Senior Assistant in the Office of the second respondent in OP stated that the third respondent-driver was responsible for the accident as he drove the jeep in rash and negligent manner. The legal heirs of one Saravana, who died in the accident, claimed compensation in OP No.289/1996. R.W.1 claimed that in OP No.289/1996, the tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of apportionment though he admitted that they did not adduce any evidence to establish the negligence of the jeep driver and that they did not receive any specific information about the accident from the first respondent except his name, he denied not taking the plea about the negligence of the driver in OP No.289/1996. He also admitted that the police filed a case against the tractor driver and is not aware of the result of the criminal case. He further admitted that no investigation was conducted for getting the details of the accident and his claim about the manner of accident are not an eye witness account but only hear say. 11. The tribunal after taking into consideration the award passed in MVOP No.289/1996 dt. 2-5-1998, which has been filed by the dependents of R.S.Saravana against the very same respondents, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to composite or contributory negligence of both the drivers and that the negligence has to be apportioned at 65% for the first respondent and 35% for the driver of the third respondent. 2-5-1998, which has been filed by the dependents of R.S.Saravana against the very same respondents, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to composite or contributory negligence of both the drivers and that the negligence has to be apportioned at 65% for the first respondent and 35% for the driver of the third respondent. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs and respondents 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay 65% of compensation and the third respondent shall be liable to pay 35% of the compensation so awarded. 12. Initially, on 10-11-2003 this court granted interim stay on condition of the appellant depositing half of the 35% of the award against the appellant within six weeks, which includes the amount already deposited. On 9-3-2004, a representation was made on behalf of the appellant before this court that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and in addition to that Rs.65,125/- was also deposited pursuant to the orders of this court on 2-1-2004. On 9-3-2004, this Hon’ble Court while making the interim stay absolute directed the appellant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.47343/- within four weeks and out of the amount so deposited, the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, who are the claimants, were directed to be withdrawn Rs.35000/- each and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Thus, out of total claim amount of Rs.1,80,250/- which the appellant has to pay, they have already deposited a sum of Rs.1,37,468/-. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant/third respondent contends that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. P.W.2 in his evidence categorically stated about the manner in which the incident took place. According to him, though the jeep was going on the left side of the road, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the said jeep. According to him, the tribunal erred in relying upon the award passed in MVOP No.289/1996. According to him, though the jeep was going on the left side of the road, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the said jeep. According to him, the tribunal erred in relying upon the award passed in MVOP No.289/1996. In the said OP no eye witness was examined; the only witness who was examined in that case was the wife of the deceased. Therefore, there was no evidence to establish the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. According to him, in the present case, there is the evidence of P.W.2 who was travelling in the jeep at the time of incident and was also injured in the accident and that there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the vehicle was taken on test drive when the accident took place. The first information report shows that both the vehicles were in the middle of the road. According to him, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.2 for the reason that the incident happened during the night time and he could not have witnessed the incident. According to him, P.W.2 did not witness what was loaded in the tractor and as such he witnessing the incident and describing the same in a graphic manner appears to be highly improbable. 15. I have gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the first information report in Cr.No.17/1996 of N.R. Pet Police Station, which shows about information relating to accident reaching the police station within half an hour and the statement of the complainant, wherein it is mentioned that he was attracted by the booming sound of the accident. According to him, he saw the jeep and the tractor lying across the road with two dead bodies and two injured persons. The report further indicates that right front side of the jeep was totally damaged and when the complainant informed his owner, he in turn informed the same to the police. Therefore, the earliest version given was not an eye witness account. The report further indicates that right front side of the jeep was totally damaged and when the complainant informed his owner, he in turn informed the same to the police. Therefore, the earliest version given was not an eye witness account. Damage to the right front side of the jeep alone may not indicate that the jeep was going slowly and cautiously on the extreme left side of the road. Ex.A-2-First information report indicates that both the vehicles were lying across the road. FIR further shows that the government jeep was driven by mechanic as test drive after effecting repairs. Further the version in the first information report show that there was head on collision between the jeep belonging to the third respondent and tractor of the first respondent. Therefore, when the accident occurred due to head on collision of two vehicles, there would be contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. As indicated above, P.W.2 could not have seen the manner in which the incident took place. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles and finding that the negligence has to be apportioned as 65% and 35 % between the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent appears to be correct, which needs no interference. 16. Further the finding arrived at in award dt. 2-5-1998 passed in MVOP No.289/1996 has become final. In the said OP, the tribunal gave a finding to that effect that there was contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and that share of negligence was apportioned between the drivers as 65% to the tractor and 35% to the jeep. 17. The age of the deceased is not in dispute. Ex.A-3-post mortem report and Ex.A-1-salary certificate of the deceased show that the deceased was 45 years at the time of the accident. The salary certificate issued by the employer shows that the deceased was earning Rs.3,900/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, the income per month would be Rs.2,600/-. The tribunal by applying multiplier “15” estimated the loss of earnings at Rs.4,68,000/-. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection and guidance to the second petitioner; Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,000/- towards loss of estate. The tribunal by applying multiplier “15” estimated the loss of earnings at Rs.4,68,000/-. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner; Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection and guidance to the second petitioner; Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.7,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,15,000/- in the ratio of 65:35 from the respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 respectively. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant/third respondent contends that though the age of the deceased was 43 years, the tribunal should have calculated compensation by applying multiplier “14” and not “15” in view of the decision of SARLA VARMA V. DELHI TRANSPORT COMPANY (2009) 6 SCC 121). Applying the ratio laid down in the above case, the suitable multiplier would be ‘14’ and not ‘15’. Hence, the loss of earnings would be Rs.2,600 x 12 x 14= 4,36,000/-. The amount awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses remain undisturbed and also the interest at 9% per annum ordered by the tribunal. As directed by the tribunal, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum and the respondents 1 and 2 in OP shall be jointly and severally liable to pay 65% of the compensation and third respondent shall pay 35% of the compensation so awarded. 19. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.