Judgment : R. Subbiah, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1891 of 2011 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal in fixing 25% negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Registration No.TN 09 M 2706 insured with them. 2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2755 of 2011 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal in fixing 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.PY 01 Z 9697 insured with them. 3. Since both the above appeals have arisen out of the same award, they are disposed of by way of this common judgment. 4. The 1st respondent in both the above appeals viz., Anandhi, is the claimant before the Tribunal and she is the wife of the deceased Vijayanand, who lost his life in the accident that had occurred on 25.10.2006. 5. With regard to the manner of accident, it is the case of the 1st respondent herein/claimant that on 25.10.2006 at about 4.00 hours, while the deceased was traveling in a car bearing Registration No.TN-09-M-2706, which was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd, from Pondicherry to Chennai, a bus bearing Registration No.PY-01-Z-9697 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. In the said accident, the owner of the car viz., Karthick died on the spot and the husband of the claimant viz., Vijayanand was taken to Pondichery Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, she made a claim as against the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.PY-01-Z-9697 and its insurer viz., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and also as against the legal heirs of the owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN-09-M-2706 and its insurer viz., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6. The Oriental Insurance Company has taken a defence that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the car insured with the New India Assurance Company. Vice verse the New India Assurance Company has taken a defence that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. 7. Vice verse the New India Assurance Company has taken a defence that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the car and thus, apportioned the negligence at 75% on the part of the driver of the bus and 25% on the part of the driver of the car, who had died in the accident. 8. Now, C.M.A.No.1891 of 2011 has been filed by the insurer of the car viz., the New India Assurance Company Ltd stating that in a connected claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.641 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Dharmpari, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence only on the part of the driver of the bus and the said award was challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company before this Court in the appeal in C.M.A.No.1357 of 2010 and in the said appeal, the award passed by the Tribunal was confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.06.2003 in C.M.A.No.1357/2010. Hence, based on the said judgment, 25% negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the car has to be set aside in the present case and consequently, the entire negligence has to be fixed only on the part of the driver of the bus insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company submitted that in C.M.A.No.1357 of 2010 only the quantum of compensation was challenged and this Court has not dealt with the negligence aspect in C.M.A.No.1357 of 2010. Therefore, the findings rendered in the present claim petition viz., M.C.O.P.No.724 of 2006 has to be dealt with only based on the evidence recorded in this case. 10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company submitted that the evidence recorded in M.C.O.P.No.724 of 2006 would show that the entire negligence is only on the part of the driver of the car and therefore, by fixing the entire liability on the part of the driver of the car, the insurer of the bus viz., Oriental Insurance Company has to be absolved from its liability. 11. 11. Keeping the submissions made on either side, We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. 12. From a perusal of the records, We find that in the connected award passed in M.C.O.P.No.641 of 2008, the entire liability was fixed by the Tribunal only on the part of the bus and the Oriental Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants therein. The said award was challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company in the appeal in C.M.A.No.1357 of 2010 and in the said appeal, this Court has dealt with only the quantum of compensation and not the finding rendered by the Tribunal with regard to negligence aspect. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company, the present case has to be dealt with independently based on the evidence available on record. 13. On a careful perusal of the evidence available on record, We find that the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.2 and he had stated in his evidence that since the rod of the accelerator got broken, he stationed the bus on the side of the road and switched on the parking light of the vehicle. The photograph was marked as Ex.R.3 and in the photograph, it was found that the bus was stationed on the thar portion of the road. Further, the Tribunal by relying upon the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report - Ex.P.3, has come to the conclusion that the version of R.W.2 cannot be true since in Ex.P.3 no mechanical defect has been mentioned. Similarly, the father of the driver of the car was examined as R.W.3 and in his evidence, he had stated that the car was driven by his son Karthik and that the driver of the bus suddenly applied the break on the middle of the road without giving any signal to the car, which was coming behind, and as a result of which, the car dashed on the rear portion of the bus. According to R.W.3, the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. One Elumalai, who was examined as P.W.2, has stated in his evidence that the car hit the rear side of the bus. According to R.W.3, the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. One Elumalai, who was examined as P.W.2, has stated in his evidence that the car hit the rear side of the bus. By considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus, who had suddenly stopped the bus on the middle of the road, is responsible for 75% negligence and thereby, 25% negligence was fixed on the part of the driver of the car. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding because the said finding is based on the evidence on record. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that the deceased Vijayanand was working as an Assistant System Engineer in TCS and receiving salary of Rs.31,000/-per month. But, the Tribunal by placing reliance upon Ex.P.11, income tax return of the deceased, has taken the annual income of the decease as Rs.2,99,284/-and rounded of the same as Rs.3 lakhs. Thereafter, by adding 50% towards future prospectus, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as annual income of the deceased. Thereafter, by deducting 50% from the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier of 18, since the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of his death, the Tribunal has arrived at a sum of Rs.40,50,000/-as total loss of income. Thereafter, by awarding different amounts under conventional heads, the Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.40,73,000/-as compensation and directed the insurer of the bus viz., Oriental Insurance company to pay 75% and the insurer of the car viz., New India Insurance Company to pay 25% of the award amount. We do not find any infirmity in the calculation made by the tribunal. In fact, the calculation made by the Tribunal is well within the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. We do not find any infirmity in the calculation made by the tribunal. In fact, the calculation made by the Tribunal is well within the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The appellants/Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the award amount, as per their respective shares, if not deposited so far, with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 7 & 8 viz., wife, father and mother of the deceased are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, as apportioned by the tribunal, with proportionate interest. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.