Judgment : 1. The claimants had filed M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Tirupatur, against the owner and Insurance Company stating that when the 1st claimant's son namely Ramamurthy, aged about 24 years, was involved a Motor Accident and sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claimants have filed the claim against the respondents and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed. 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments in the claim that the driver of the Light Motor Vehicle bearing temporary Registration No.MH-12-0764 drove it in a reckless manner and dashed against the unregistered Motorcycle, which had been ridden by the deceased Ramamurthy. Actually, the said motorcycle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties in the claim. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of deceased was also not admitted. 3. On considering the averments of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely:- (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? And (2) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimants, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Postmortem report; Ex.P3-Death certificate; Ex.P4-Medical discharge summary; Ex.P5-R.C.Book of the mini van; Ex.P6-Accident register; Ex.P7-Death Certificate issued by Municipality of Vellore; Ex.P8-Insurance Policy; Ex.P9 & Ex.P10-Medical bills; and Ex.P11-Driving licence of the deceased. On the respondents' side, no witness was examined and no documents was marked. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 01.07.2003 at about 12.00 noon, when her son was proceeding on his motorcycle on the Ambur Main Road, the 1st respondents vehicle bearing temporary Registration No.MH-12-764, driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed on the same road, had dashed against her son. As a result, he had sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, wherein he expired on 10.07.2003 in spite of treatment. PW1 further stated that her son was aged about 24 years and he was a two-wheeler mechanic and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. As a result, he had sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, wherein he expired on 10.07.2003 in spite of treatment. PW1 further stated that her son was aged about 24 years and he was a two-wheeler mechanic and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. On considering the evidence of the witness and on perusing the documentary exhibits marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,43,524/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that the rider of the motorcycle had committed the said accident in a negligent manner. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,43,524/-, without any documentary proof regarding income. The Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month which is on the higher side and the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is also not proper. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased was aged about 24 years and he was working as a two wheeler mechanic and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. The 1st claimant is the widowed mother and the 2nd and 3rd claimants are the minor sister and minor brother and all are depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. The learned counsel further submitted that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle namely mini van. The said van had been insured with the Insurance Company. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of age, occupation and income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of transport, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. All the three aspects have been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R., Postmortem report and Insurance Policy. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. This Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest thereon. 9. All the three aspects have been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R., Postmortem report and Insurance Policy. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. This Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest thereon. 9. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with proportionate interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.282 of 2003, dated 16.12.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, is confirmed. No costs.