Judgment 1. The appellant/third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.520 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.520 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram, claiming a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the deceased Murugesan in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 03.06.2006, at about 01.15 p.m., the deceased Murugesan was travelling as a passenger in the third respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN27 N1628, from Ulundurpet to Kallakurichi and when the bus was near Sembianmadhevi, the first respondent's paddy harvesting tractor bearing registration No.TN32 W5483, which was coming in front of the bus and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the bus. As a result, the deceased Murugesan had sustained grievous injuries and admitted in the hospital. But, in spite of treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 30.07.2006. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 52 years and was working as an agriculturist and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners had filed the claim petition against the respondents 1 to 3. The first and second respondents are the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN32 W5483 and the third respondent is the State Transport Corporation. 4. The first respondent, in his counter statement, had stated that the deceased Murugesan had not travelled as a passenger in the third respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN27 N1628. It was submitted that the accident was not caused due to any rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and that it was caused only due to the negligence of the driver of the third respondent's Corporation bus. It was submitted that as the first respondent's vehicle was insured with the second respondent, only the second respondent is liable to pay compensation, if so decided by the Tribunal. 5. It was submitted that as the first respondent's vehicle was insured with the second respondent, only the second respondent is liable to pay compensation, if so decided by the Tribunal. 5. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter statement, had submitted that the driver of the first respondent's paddy harvesting vehicle had not driven it in a rash and negligent manner, as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the deceased Murugesan had not died due to injuries sustained in the said accident, as the accident had occurred on 03.06.2006 and the deceased had died only on 30.06.2006. It was submitted that the first respondent's vehicle had not been insured with them at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 6. The third respondent Transport Corporation, in their counter statement, had submitted that on 03.06.2006, when the driver of the bus was driving the bus bearing registration No.TN27 N1628 from Salem to Pondicherry and at about 01.30 p.m., the first respondent's paddy harvesting vehicle bearing registration No.TN32 W5483, which was coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed behind the bus and caused the accident. It was submitted that a criminal case had also been filed only against the driver of the first respondent's vehicle. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 7. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence, was the accident caused? and ii. Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? and iii. If so, what is the quantum? 8. On the petitioners' side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 namely FIR, M.V.I's reports of the bus and paddy harvesting vehicle, insurance policy, accident register, discharge summary, postmortem report. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 9. P.W.1 wife of the deceased had adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle. She had however stated that the first respondent's vehicle was coming in the opposite direction and had dashed against the bus. In support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P7. 10. She had however stated that the first respondent's vehicle was coming in the opposite direction and had dashed against the bus. In support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P7. 10. P.W.2 Kumarasamy, eye-witness of the accident, had adduced evidence that the first respondent's paddy harvesting vehicle, which was coming in the opposite direction to that of the bus and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the front of the bus. Hence, the Tribunal had observed that the accident had been caused by a head on collision between the vehicles. 11. R.W.1 Palanisamy, conductor of the bus, had adduced evidence that the first respondent's paddy harvesting vehicle, which was coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the right side of the bus and caused the accident. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident had contributed negligence equally for the occurrence of the accident and hence held that the first and second respondents liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed and held that the third respondent liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed. 12. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that after the accident, the deceased was initially admitted at Government Hospital, Ulundurpet and then took treatment at Government Hospital, Pondicherry and subsequently at Government Hospital, Chennai and that in spite of treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P5 to P7. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the first respondent's vehicle had been insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P7, it is seen that the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident. Though P.W.1 had stated that her husband was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, no documentary evidence had been marked to prove her claim. On scrutiny of Ex.P7, it is seen that the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident. Though P.W.1 had stated that her husband was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, no documentary evidence had been marked to prove her claim. Hence, the Tribunal on taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month and on adopting a multiplier of 11, had awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,000/-as compensation under the head of loss of income (3,000 X 2/3 X 12 X 11), Rs.5,000/-was awarded to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/-was awarded to the second and third petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the first and second respondents to pay 50% of the compensation awarded and also directed the third respondent to pay 50% of the compensation awarded, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of three months, from the date of it's order and in default of payment of compensation, the respondents were directed to pay 9% interest on the compensation awarded, from the time of default till the date of payment of compensation. 13. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal had failed to see that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle drove it rashly and hit against the backside of the bus and as such the petitioner, who a passenger in the bus, had sustained fatal injury. It is contended that FIR was registered against the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and in spite of it, the Tribunal had wrongly fixed 50% liability on the appellant herein. It is contended that the multiplier adopted for assessment of loss of income was on the higher side. It is contented that the award passed was excessive and hence it was prayed to set aside the award passed as against the appellant. 15. It is contended that the multiplier adopted for assessment of loss of income was on the higher side. It is contented that the award passed was excessive and hence it was prayed to set aside the award passed as against the appellant. 15. The very competent counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was travelling in the transport corporation and the said bus and tractor had collided with each other and caused the accident. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence of the witnesses and on considering FIR, had fastened the liability equally amongst the respondents. As such there is no lacuna in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 16. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal had fastened the liability in an appropriate manner on the basis of oral and documentary facts. Therefore, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation after determining the negligence and liability in an appropriate manner. 17. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the appellant has raised the contention that the driver of the said tractor had caused the said accident by his rash and negligent driving, but in support of his contention, no substantial evidence like rough sketch and investigation officers' evidence had been let in. Hence, the above appeal does not have enough force to allow it and hence the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed. 18. This Court had already directed the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit 50% of the compensation amount with interest, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.520 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with proportionate interest thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 19. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with proportionate interest thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 19. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.520 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 20. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.520 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Villupuram, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.