Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1930 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the wife and daughter of the (deceased) Adhimoolam have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Adhimoolam in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 13.03.1999, at about 4.30 hours, when the deceased was walking on the extreme left of the Vegetable Market, Nehru Street, Tindivanam, the 1st respondent's Auto bearing Registration No.TN-32-Y-4842, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the (deceased) Adhimoolam. As a result, the (deceased) sustained grievous injuries and was admitted at Government Hospital, Tindivanam and after prolonged treatment, had subsequently died in his house on 15.08.1999. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Vegetable vendor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-32-Y-4842. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased Adhimoolam. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the injured Adhimoolam had died long after the accident and as such his death was not caused due to injuries sustained in the accident and as such the petitioners cannot claim compensation. It was contended that the autopsy was not conducted by Government Doctors to show the cause of death. It was submitted that the accident was not caused due to any negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's Auto driver and was caused only due to negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In its additional counter it was stated that the 1st respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was submitted that the accident was not caused due to any negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's Auto driver and was caused only due to negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In its additional counter it was stated that the 1st respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was submitted that the complaint was lodged at the police station on 20.03.1999 by 8.30 hours, but the accident took place on 13.03.1999 at about 4.30 hours. It was submitted that the claimants colluding with the 1st respondent had falsely filed a claim to get illegal gratification from the Insurance Company. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely:- (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's Auto? (2) Did the deceased Adhimooolam die due to injuries sustained in the accident? And (3) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioners are entitled to get? 5. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6 namely: Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P3-Copy of Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P4-Copy of Wound Certificate issued to Adhimoolam at Tindivanam Government Hospital; Ex.P5-Death Certificate; and ExP6-Expert opinion certificate given by Dr. Ramanujam. On the respondents side, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. PW1, the 1st petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her claim had marked Exhibits P1 to P6. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R. had been filed on 20.03.1999, i.e. after a week from the date of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the 1st respondent's Auto driver had been punished before the Criminal Court. The Tribunal, on opining that the delay of 7 days cannot be cited as a reason to state that no accident had occurred observed that the delay is condonable as the (deceased) Adhimoolam was taking treatment for injuries sustained during this period. The Tribunal, on opining that the delay of 7 days cannot be cited as a reason to state that no accident had occurred observed that the delay is condonable as the (deceased) Adhimoolam was taking treatment for injuries sustained during this period. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's Auto and hence held the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 7. PW2, Dr. K. Ramanujam had adduced evidence that he had examined the medical records issued at Tindivanam Government Hospital and observed that due to the accident on 13.03.1999, he had sustained fracture of humer bone in his left thigh and that he had died due to injuries sustained in the said accident. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P6. The Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of PW2 and documentary exhibits marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, held that the (deceased) Adhimoolam had died only due to injuries sustained in the accident. 8. The Tribunal, on taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-and on adopting a multiplier of 12 as was relevant to the age of the (deceased) (45 years), awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-(3,000X2/3X12X12) as compensation under the head of loss of income; Rs.2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, with costs. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited, Tindivanam has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-under the head of loss of dependency to the family of the deceased in a casual manner, especially as the deceased did not die due to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, which actually took place on 13.03.1999. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-under the head of loss of dependency to the family of the deceased in a casual manner, especially as the deceased did not die due to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, which actually took place on 13.03.1999. It was contended that the 1st and 2nd respondents herein did not establish that the deceased was hospitalised, ever since the date of accident and took continuous treatment till his death i.e. 15.08.1999 and have only produced the death certificate (Ex.P5), which did not disclose about the cause for the death. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to note that no autopsy was conducted on the deceased person to show his cause of death. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, without any basis. It was contended that even though the deceased had sustained injuries in the road accident, no claim application was made by himself for his grievous injuries but on the other hand, the legal heirs i.e. 1st and 2nd respondent herein have filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal after nearly a year from the date of accident, which itself creates much doubt as to whether the deceased had died only on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and hence he underwent treatment at Government Hospital, Tindivanam and thereafter, he was referred to Government Hospital, Pondicherry. As such, he had undergone treatment for a long period. In order to prove the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and period of treatment, the Government Hospital records have been marked as Exhibits P4 and P5. Regarding the accident, F.I.R. has been registered. The injuries sustained in the accident had only caused the death of the (deceased). The widow of the deceased and daughter of the deceased, who are the claimants herein, are uneducated and hence lost their mental balance, since the deceased had died in the accident. Hence, they are unable to observe the legal formalities of conducting post mortem. The injuries sustained in the accident had only caused the death of the (deceased). The widow of the deceased and daughter of the deceased, who are the claimants herein, are uneducated and hence lost their mental balance, since the deceased had died in the accident. Hence, they are unable to observe the legal formalities of conducting post mortem. Before the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as a Vegetable vendor. Further, the Doctor had certified that the deceased had died only due to the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident. 11. On verifying the factual position 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. It is evident that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the Auto and he has been punished before the Criminal Court, Tindivanam and the vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. As such, in negligence and liability it has been proved. PW2, a qualified Doctor had certified that the deceased had died due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. As such, the certificate issued by a qualified Doctor cannot be trifled with. Regarding quantum of compensation, the compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-awarded is not on the higher side as the age of the deceased was only 45 years and he was a earning member. As such, this Court considers that the award passed by the Tribunal is fit to be executable. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant herein to execute the award, by way of depositing it before the trial Court, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after deducting earlier deposits made by them. 12. After such a deposit having 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.155 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 13. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 13. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2000, dated 25.03.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.