Judgment 1. The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.190 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam. 2. The petitioners, who are the wife and minor children of the deceased Thavasi, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2006, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,01,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Thavasi, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 13.09.1999, at about 12.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Thavasi was riding on his motor cycle on the left side of the Andipatti to Theni Main Road, from east towards west and when he was nearing the Vaigai road bridge at 14.15 hours, the 2nd respondents "Tata Benz" lorry bearing registration No.TN-MDA-5187, coming in the opposite direction and driven by the 1st respondent at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and without sounding horn, dashed against the cycle ridden by the deceased Thavasi. In the impact, the (deceased) Thavasi, fell down and sustained severe injuries on his head and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a gardener and earning Rs.1,500/-per month. Hence, the petitioners, who are dependents on the income of the deceased have filed the claim against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.MDA-5187. 3. The 3rd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the 2nd respondent had paid the premium of Rs.1,245/- for the lorry which was in force prior to the period extending from 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999 and that he would remit the revised premium for the year i.e., from 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999 at the earliest and taken the policy of insurance (Policy No.31/720901/15569). It was submitted that when the 3rd respondent sent a registered notice to the 2nd respondent asking him to remit the revised premium in August 1998, the 2nd respondent had failed to remit the premium. Hence, the policy of insurance taken by the 2nd respondent was annulled through a notice sent by the 3rd respondent as per reference No.31/720901/40139. It was submitted that when the 3rd respondent sent a registered notice to the 2nd respondent asking him to remit the revised premium in August 1998, the 2nd respondent had failed to remit the premium. Hence, the policy of insurance taken by the 2nd respondent was annulled through a notice sent by the 3rd respondent as per reference No.31/720901/40139. It was submitted that on 13.09.1999, the policy of insurance for the vehicle bearing registration No.MD-5187 was not in force and as such the 3rd respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that the 2nd respondent had taken another policy of insurance for the period extending from 15.09.1999 to 14.09.2000 vide policy No.31/720901/18135, only two days after the occurrence of the accident. It was submitted that the petitioners have to prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased and manner of accident through documentary evidence. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent lorry driver?; (2) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation?; If so, what is the quantum of compensation which they are entitled to get? 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P7 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P4-post mortem report; Ex.P5- rough sketch; Ex.P6-Judgment of Criminal Court; Ex.P7-copy of insurance policy. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and one document namely copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. PW.2, Palpandi, who is the eyewitness of the accident had adduced evidence that on 13.09.1999, the (deceased) Thavasi, after taking his Midday meal had proceeded on his cycle to his office and that he was walking behind him. He deposed that when the (deceased) Thavasi, was proceeding from east towards west on the Andipatti to Theni road and approaching the bridge near the Vaigai road junction on the south side, the respondent's lorry bearing registration No.MDA-5187, which was driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed behind the cycle. He deposed that the (deceased) Thavasi had fallen down from his cycle and his head was crushed by the tyres of the respondent's lorry and that he had died on the spot. 7. He deposed that the (deceased) Thavasi had fallen down from his cycle and his head was crushed by the tyres of the respondent's lorry and that he had died on the spot. 7. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P2 observed that the complaint had been registered against the 1st and that he had been charge sheeted on scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanism failure in the respondents lorry. The Tribunal on scrutiny of rough sketch marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, the copy of Criminal Court judgment observed that the driver of the lorry had accepted his guilt before the Criminal Court and paid the fine. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of PW.2 and the other documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 8. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, post mortem report, it is seen that the (deceased) Thavasi was aged 40 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked on the petitioners side to prove the income of the deceased, the tribunal held that the notional income of the deceased could only be taken as Rs.15,000/- per year, as per the minimum wages fixed as per the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of "16", as was relevant to the age of the deceased, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.15,000/-x1/3x2x16). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st petitioner under the head of loss of consortium; and Rs.2,000/-for funeral expenses and rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,500/- as compensation to the petitioners. 9. RW.1, B. Perumal, the Assistant in the 3rd respondent's firm had adduced evidence that the 2nd respondent had taken the insurance policy for his lorry with them only on 15.09.1999 i.e., two days after the occurrence of the accident and in support of his evidence had marked Ex.R1, the copy of insurance policy, wherein it is seen that the period of coverage of insurance for lorry had been mentioned as 15.09.1999 to 14.09.2000. On the petitioners side, the insurance policy had been marked as Ex.P7. It is seen from scrutiny of Ex.P7 that the period of insurance coverage had been given as 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999. On the petitioners side, the insurance policy had been marked as Ex.P7. It is seen from scrutiny of Ex.P7 that the period of insurance coverage had been given as 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999. Hence, the Tribunal on observing that two different insurance policies had been marked on both sides regarding period of coverage and on observing that the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the lorry had not entered appearance, held that the compensation assessed has to be paid jointly and severally by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The Tribunal directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to jointly and severally deposit the compensation of Rs.1,69,500/-to the petitioners 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, with costs, within one month from the date of its order. 10. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Theni, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not exonerating the appellant from paying any compensation amount to the claimants, since at the time of accident on 13.09.1999, there was no insurance coverage for the vehicle bearing registration No.MDA-5187. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not directing the 5th respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.MDA-5187 to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. It was contended that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not taking the Judicial notice that the 5th respondent has taken the insurance policy from the appellant insurance company after the accident on 13.09.1999. (Coverage from 15.09.1999 to 14.09.2000) since the earlier insurance policy (Coverage from 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999) was cancelled prior to the accident. It was pointed out that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of RW.1 and exhibit R1 in the proper perspective. It was contended that the award passed by the Tribunal was excessive and has to be set aside or modified. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that at the time of accident, the policy was in force. The policy was valid for period from 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999. The learned counsel also produced the copy of the policy. It was contended that the award passed by the Tribunal was excessive and has to be set aside or modified. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that at the time of accident, the policy was in force. The policy was valid for period from 24.12.1998 to 23.12.1999. The learned counsel also produced the copy of the policy. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased was an earning member and as such the quantum of compensation was on the lower side. The award granted for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are also on the lower side. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. However, the insurance company issued notice to the owner of the vehicle and cancelled the said policy with effect from 10.08.1999, since the owner of the vehicle had not remitted the revised premium during August 1998, but the owner of the vehicle had produced the copy of the policy which was in force at the time of accident, then the insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount, from the owner after depositing the entire compensation, into the Court. As per this Court's records, this Court directed the insurance company to deposit 50% of the award amount with interest and cost. Now, this Court directs the insurance company to pay the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 13. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. IV, Periyakulam, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any, already made by the claimants. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. IV, Periyakulam, is confirmed, dated 22.08.2008. No costs.