Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the wife, minor sons and parents of the deceased K.Mani, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore, against the respondents, claiming a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of the said K.Mani in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 27.03.2004, at about 02.45 hours, when the deceased Mani was proceeding in a Qualis car bearing registration No.TN39 S7953, along with others from north to south, on Dindigul-Madurai N.H.7 Main Road and when the vehicle was near Pallapatty Pirivu, the first respondent's bus bearing registration No.KL9 K6351, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car and caused the accident. As a result, the deceased and others had sustained grievous injuries and were admitted at Government Hospital, Dindigul, but in spite of treatment, the deceased and two others succumbed to their injuries. At the time of the accident, the deceased K.Mani was employed as a Clerk and Accountant and earning a sum of Rs.5,800/- per month. Hence, the petitioners had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the bus bearing registration No.KL9 K6351. 4. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter statement, had submitted that as the first respondent's bus bearing registration No.KL9 K6351, was not covered under a valid permit to ply on the roads in Tamil Nadu and as the first respondent had violated the policy conditions of insurance, only the first respondent is liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing registration No.TN39 N7953 and as such the claim is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the car as necessary parties in the claim. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing registration No.TN39 N7953 and as such the claim is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the car as necessary parties in the claim. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that the driver of the car had a valid driving licence and that the car was covered under a valid file and insurance police at the time of accident. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? ii. Are the owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.TN39 L7953 necessary parties in the claim? Is the petition liable to be dismissed due to the non-joinder? and iii. Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 6. On the petitioners' side eight witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P22 namely FIR, postmortem report of Mani, death and legal heir certificate of Mani, postmortem report, death and legal heir certificate of Mani relating to M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, salary certificate of Mani in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, salary certificate of Mani in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004 issued by Velan Textiles, postmortem report, death and legal heir certificate, salary certificate of Ramasami, attendance register, salary register of Mani in M.C.O.P.No.944 of 2004, salary particulars of Ramasamy, R.C.Book, insurance policy of the car, driving licence of the Mani, power of attorney letter given to P.W.8 to adduce evidence and copy of saral and statement. On the respondents' side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1 namely receipt for Rs.7,070/-. 7. In the same accident, two other claims had been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased persons, who had travelled in the car, in M.C.O.P.Nos.829 and 944 of 2004, claiming compensation from the same respondents. On the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in M.C.O.P.No.829 of 2004. 8. On the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in M.C.O.P.No.829 of 2004. 8. P.W.1/first petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.829 of 2004 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Ex.P1 FIR. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that FIR had been registered against the bus driver based on the complaint given by one Thiyagarajan, who was examined as P.W.7. 9. P.W.7 had adduced evidence that on the day of occurrence of the accident, when he, one Duraisamy and Palanisami, were proceeding in an Ambassador Car and when one B.D.O.Ramasami, Assistant B.D.O. Thirumalaisami, Chairman Palanisami and Writer Mani along with the driver Mani were proceeding in a Qualis Car, on Dindigul-Madurai N.H. Road and nearing Pallapattipirivu, the first respondent's bus bearing registration No.KL9 K6351, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the Qualis Car, due to which the said B.D.O. Ramasami, Arusami, Palanisami, Mani and the driver Mani had died on the spot. 10. Hence, the Tribunal on relying on the evidence of P.W.7 and on the oral and documentary evidence and on considering that no evidence had been let in on the part of the respondents side to rebut the claim of P.W.7 regarding manner of accident, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's bus and hence held that claim need not be dismissed for the non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the Qualis car as necessary parties. 11. P.W.2, who is the first petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004 and wife of the deceased K.Mani had further adduced evidence that her husband K.Mani was aged 35 years and that he was earning a sum of Rs.5,800/-per month by working as a clerk and accountant and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P5 to P9. 12. P.W.8 Sridhar, Accountant in Velan Textiles had adduced evidence that he and the deceased K.Mani had worked as Accountants in the firm and that the deceaed K.Mani was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/-per month and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P21 and P22. 12. P.W.8 Sridhar, Accountant in Velan Textiles had adduced evidence that he and the deceased K.Mani had worked as Accountants in the firm and that the deceaed K.Mani was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/-per month and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P21 and P22. However, the Tribunal, had observed that no salary register or receipt books had been marked to prove the income of the deceased. 13. P.W.4 Vigneshram, Clerk at Andipalayam Panchayat Union, had adduced evidence that the deceased K.Mani was employed as a Clerk in their office and in support of his evidence he had marked Ex.P14. On scrutiny of Ex.P14, it is seen that the deceased was aged 36 years and was getting a monthly income of Rs.1,800/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P14, P21 and P22 held that the notional income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.5,000/-per month. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.6,40,000/-as compensation under the head of loss of income (5000 X 2/3 X 12 X 16), Rs.30,000/-was awarded to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/-was awarded to each of the second and third petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/-was awarded to each of the 4th and 5th petitioners under the head of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,55,000/- as compensation to the petitioners. 14. R.W.1 Praburam Divakaran, employee of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Office at Sankarankovil, had adduced evidence that a temporary permit had been issued for the bus bearing registration No.KLK6251 to operate in Kerala from 21.03.2004 to 27.03.2004 and as the owner had violated the permit conditions by plying the bus from Marthandam to Coimbatore along with 25 passengers, Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Tax of Rs.7,070/- was levied on the first respondent permitting it to ply for seven days and in support of his evidence he had marked Ex.R1. On scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that the tax had been levied on 23.03.2004 and that the accident had occurred on 27.03.2004. Hence, the Tribunal held that the bus was covered under a valid permit to ply on the road at the time of accident and hence held that the second respondent liable to pay compensation. On scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that the tax had been levied on 23.03.2004 and that the accident had occurred on 27.03.2004. Hence, the Tribunal held that the bus was covered under a valid permit to ply on the road at the time of accident and hence held that the second respondent liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal had directed the second respondent Insurance Company to deposit the said sum 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 a period of one month from the date of it's order. 15. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, without any acceptable evidence and erred in relying on the interested testimony of P.W.4 to presume that there was the possibility for the deceased to earn through part time job. It is also contended that the multiplier of 16 adopted and the award of Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.60,000/-for loss of love and affection were excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants has argued that the deceased was working as a clerk and accountant and earning a sum of Rs.5,800/- per month from the Panchayat Union, Andipalayam and also getting income from other sources. He was aged about 35 years. The claimants are the young widow, minor children aged about 6 and 2 years respectively and the aged parents aged about 70 years and 65 years. All are depending on the income of the deceased. FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus, who had driven the bus in a negligent manner and dashed against the car, wherein the deceased had travelled as a passenger. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of age, income and occupation of the deceased. 18. All are depending on the income of the deceased. FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus, who had driven the bus in a negligent manner and dashed against the car, wherein the deceased had travelled as a passenger. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of age, income and occupation of the deceased. 18. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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. Further, this Court is of the view that FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus and compensation had been assessed on the basis of salary certificate, dependency of the claimants, who are 5 in numbers and age of the deceased, in an appropriate manner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appeal does not have enough force to allow it. 19. This Court has already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest thereon, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore. 20. Now, it is open to the major claimants namely 1st, 4th and 5th claimants, who are the wife and parents of the deceased, to withdraw their share amount, apportioned by the Tribunal, with accrued interests, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 21. This Court directs the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore, to deposit the minors' share amount with proportionate interest thereon, in a nationalized bank as fixed deposit in the cumulative deposit scheme, till they attain the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor claimants. 22. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore, is confirmed. 22. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Tirupur at Coimbatore, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.