Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.717 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tiruvallore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the mother and wife of the deceased Jayaraman Ramesh had filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.717 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tiruvallore, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Jayaraman Ramesh in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 28.05.2006, while the deceased was proceeding as a driver in the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 T3569, from Nandhyala to Chennai and at about 12.00 noon, when the vehicle was near Mantampalli Village, on Nandhyala to Renigunta High Road, the driver of the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No.AP21 V8595, which was coming in the opposite direction, driven it in a rash and negligent manner and came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 T8569. As a result, the deceased fell down from the lorry and died on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 35 years and was working as a driver and earning Rs.3,500/-per month. Hence, the petitioners had filed the claim petition against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.AP21 V8595. 4. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the driver of the first respondent's lorry had not been rash and negligent in the driving of the lorry as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that the first respondent's lorry was covered under a valid policy of insurance through documentary evidence. It was also submitted that the driver of the first respondent's lorry did not have a valid licence to drive it at the time of accident and as such the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that the claim was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 T3569 as necessary parties. It was submitted that the claim was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 T3569 as necessary parties. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased and also prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No.AP21 V8595? and ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. On the petitioners' side, the second petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5 namely copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report, copy of M.V.I's report, legal heir certificate and driving licence of the deceased. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim petition regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P5. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that FIR had been filed against the deceased Jayaraman Ramesh, for rash and negligent driving based on the complaint given by one Nagarjuna, who was the driver of another lorry. The Tribunal had observed that the respondents had not produced any documents to show that the police, after investigation had filed the charge sheet against the deceased. The Tribunal further observed that the respondents had not examined any eye witness and had also not examined the driver of the first respondent's lorry to prove that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Jayaraman Ramesh. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the vehicles involved in the accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the deceased had a valid driving licence to drive the lorry. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanism failure of the vehicles involved in the accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the deceased had a valid driving licence to drive the lorry. Hence, the Tribunal, on considering the evidence of P.W.1 and on scrutiny of the documentary evidence, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's lorry driver and hence held the second respondent, being the insurer of the first respondent's lorry, liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 8. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that her husband was working as a driver in M/s.Arjun Associates and earning Rs.5,500/-per month and that due to his death, she and her mother-in-law have been put into hardship. The Tribunal observed that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the deceased and that no officials of the firm had been examined. Hence, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the deceased could only be taken as Rs.3,000/-per month. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the deceased was aged 34 years. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,000/-as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of income (3000 X 2/3 x 12 X 16), Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the first petitioner under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the second petitioner under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.6,000/-was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondents to jointly or severely pay 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 two months from the date of it's order. 9. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was at fault without noticing that the police records and other documents such as FIR clearly reveal that the deceased driver Jayaraman Ramesh was at fault. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was at fault without noticing that the police records and other documents such as FIR clearly reveal that the deceased driver Jayaraman Ramesh was at fault. It is also contended that the Tribunal had failed to note that M.V.I's report also clearly reveals that the deceased was at fault and as such the claim is not maintainable under law. It is also contended that the Tribunal had erred in not even holding that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and ought to have apportioned the liability in an appropriate manner. It is contended that the award passed was excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside or in the alternative to modify and scale down the compensation awarded. 11. The highly competent counsel for the claimants has argued that FIR had been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP21 V8595, since the driver had been rash and negligent in his driving. The said vehicle had been insured with the appellant herein. As such, the negligence and liability have been decided in an appropriate manner. The deceased was aged about 34 years and he was earning Rs.5,500/- per month, as a heavy vehicle driver. The claimants are the widowed mother of the deceased and wife of the deceased respectively. Now, both have been put into hardship as they have lost their sole breadwinner namely the deceased. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation to the claimants under the relevant heads namely loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of earning during medical treatment period and transport. 12. On verifying the factual position of the case and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on scrutinizing 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. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had decided all the issues on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the impugned award is found to be fit for execution. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed. 13. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had decided all the issues on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the impugned award is found to be fit for execution. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has informed this Court that the entire compensation amount has already been deposited before the Tribunal. Now, 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.717 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tiruvallore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 14. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.717 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tiruvallore, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.