Judgment : 1. The appellant / fourth respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.2161 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Krishnagiri. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased Kannadasan, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2161 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Krishnagiri, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation, from the respondents, for the the death of the said Kanndasan in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 08.01.2003, at about 09.10 hours, when the deceased Kannadasan was driving a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN27 K1116, near Bharath Oil Mill, situated about 3 Kms., east of Villupuram Police Station, a bus bearing registration No.PY01 K4455, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Tipper lorry and caused the accident. As a result, the driver of the Tipper lorry i.e., Kannadasan sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 26 years and was working as a driver and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owners and insurers of the bus bearing registration No.PY01 K4455 and Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN27 K1116. 4. The second respondent Insurance Company had filed their counter affidavit and submitted that the driver of the bus drove it in a slow and cautious manner and that when it was near the accident site, the deceased driver of the lorry, which was coming in the opposite direction, drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing this, the driver of the bus applied sudden brake to avert an accident. But, in spite of it, the deceased had dashed his lorry against the bus and caused the accident. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were also not admitted. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. But, in spite of it, the deceased had dashed his lorry against the bus and caused the accident. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were also not admitted. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The fourth respondent Insurance Company had submitted in their counter affidavit that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the deceased had not been rash and negligent in his driving of the lorry. It was submitted that as nine persons had travelled as unauthorized passengers in the Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN27 K1116, the policy conditions of insurance had been violated and as such the fourth respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It was also submitted that the deceased did not have a valid licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident. The averments made in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 6. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed four issues namely: i. Whether the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the first respondent's vehicle which is insured with second respondent? ii. Whether this accident had happened due to negligent on part of the deceased Kannadasan? iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation as claimed in the petition? and iv. To what other relief is the claimant entitled to get? 7. On the claimants' side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11 namely copy of FIR, postmortem certificate, copy of insurance policy of tipper lorry, copy of insurance policy of bus, copy of driving licence of bus driver, copy of R.C.Book of the Bus, copy of R.C.Book of the tipper lorry, original driving licence of the deceased Kannadasan, copy of transfer certificate, copy of M.V.I's report concerned with bus and legal heir certificate. On the respondents' side, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4 namely insurance policy of tipper lorry, acknowledgment card of the second respondent's letter, letter of R2 to R1 and acknowledgment card for Ex.R3. 8. On the respondents' side, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4 namely insurance policy of tipper lorry, acknowledgment card of the second respondent's letter, letter of R2 to R1 and acknowledgment card for Ex.R3. 8. P.W.1 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P11. 9. P.W.2 Sampath, eye-witness of the accident, had also adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's bus. He had however admitted that he had gone to the occurrence place only after hearing the noise of collision between two vehicles. 10. R.W.1 and R.W.2 had adduced evidence that FIR had been filed only against the driver of the third respondent's lorry for rash and negligent driving and as such the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, observed that FIR had been registered against the driver of the lorry for rash and negligent driving and further observed that the accident had happened on a highway and that it was a head on collision. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had been caused due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 40:60 amongst the drivers of the first respondent's bus and the third respondent's lorry and hence held that the first and second respondent are liable to pay 40% of the compensation to the claimants and the third and fourth respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants as per the apportioned ratio. 11. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. 11. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on holding the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-per month, and on adopting a multiplier of 13, as it was relevant to the age of the first claimant (46 years), awarded a sum of Rs.4,16,000/-as compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of income (4,000 X 2/3 X 12 X 13), Rs.20,000/- was awarded to each of the first and second claimants under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- was awarded to each of the claimants 3 to 5 under the head of loss of dependency as legal heirs, Rs.5,000/- was awarded for transport and Rs.5,000/-was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,14,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The first and second respondents were directed to deposit 40% of the compensation amount and the third and fourth respondents were directed to deposit 60% of the compensation, 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 two months, from the date of it's order. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the fourth respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the sixth respondent herein/driver of the bus had not been examined to prove that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the deceased lorry driver and that the Tribunal failed to note that as per the evidence of the claimants and P.W.2 driver of the bus was the tort-feasor and since no contra evidence had been adduced the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. 14. It is contended further that the Tribunal, after having observed that the bus driver had not taken precautionary steps to avert the accident, erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay 60% of the award. 14. It is contended further that the Tribunal, after having observed that the bus driver had not taken precautionary steps to avert the accident, erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay 60% of the award. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to note that vicarious liability will not arise when the claim is made by the tort feasor and cannot claim compensation from the owner of the vehicle and consequently from the Insurance Company. 15. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the father, brothers and sisters of the deceased cannot be considered as dependents of the deceased. It is contended further the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 of the income of the deceased for his person expenses as he was a bachelor. It is also contended that the award granted under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of dependency to the claimants 3 to 5 were excessive and erroneous. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award as against this appellant. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has submitted that the sixth respondent is the owner of the bus, which has been insured with the seventh respondent herein. Therefore, the sixth respondent is only a formal party. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent has submitted that the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased and as such the seventh respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. However, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the side of the seventh respondent as 40% and that the amount fixed as liability has been deposited. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants has argued that the driver of the bus had committed the said accident. But, in the said accident, the driver of the lorry had expired on the spot. Taking advantage of this opportunity, FIR had been filed against the deceased. If the negligence is there on the part of the driver (deceased) of the tipper lorry, the owner of the bus or insurer of the bus has to file the rough sketch and prove their case that the accident had been committed by the deceased but in this case it has not been done. 19. If the negligence is there on the part of the driver (deceased) of the tipper lorry, the owner of the bus or insurer of the bus has to file the rough sketch and prove their case that the accident had been committed by the deceased but in this case it has not been done. 19. 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. This Court is of the further view that the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a legal point that the deceased was a tort-feasor and as such the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In order to prove this ground, the appellant had not produced rough sketch to determine the tyre marks of both vehicles and as such the contentions of the appellant in this regard is rejected. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 20. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,41,000/- in total as compensation. But, due to a typographical error, it has been mentioned as Rs.5,14,000/-. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 60% of the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.5,41,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as per the Tribunal award, after deducting earlier deposits made by them, as per this Court's earlier order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 21. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned compensation amount, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2161 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Krishnagiri, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 22. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.2161 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Krishnagiri, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.