Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Venkatesan, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation, from the respondents, for the the death of the said Venkatesan in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 07.08.2002, at about 04.30 p.m., when the deceased Venkatesan was proceeding in the first respondent's tractor bearing registration No.TN27 Q6584, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the vehicle capsized and the deceased Venkatesan sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident, the deceased Venkatesan was aged 14 years and was working as a Tailor and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the tractor bearing registration No.TN.27 Q6584. 4. The first respondent, in his counter affidavit, had submitted that the claimants should prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased and manner of accident through documentary evidence. It was also submitted that the driver of the first respondent's tractor had not been rash and negligent in his driving as alleged in the claim petition. It was also that as the driver of the first respondent's vehicle had a valid licence and as the tractor was covered under a policy of insurance with the second respondent, the first respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and that only the second respondent is liable to pay compensation, if so decided by the Tribunal. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The second respondent, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the driver of the first respondent's tractor did not have a valid licence and that the tractor was not covered under a policy of insurance with them. It was also submitted that the first respondent's tractor driver had not been rash and negligent in his driving, as alleged in the claim. It was also submitted that the first respondent's tractor driver had not been rash and negligent in his driving, as alleged in the claim. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was also submitted that as the first respondent had violated the policy conditions of insurance by permitting the deceased to travel as a gratuitous passenger in the tractor, only the first respondent is liable to pay compensation and that the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive. 6. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: i. Whether the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's tractor? ii. Whether the deceased Venkatesan had travelled in the first respondent's tractor as a gratuitous passenger? and iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 7. On the claimants' side, the first claimant Raman was examined as P.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 namely copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report and copy of M.V.I's report. On the respondents' side, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4 namely copy of policy, copy of claim for damages of tractor made by the first respondent with the second respondent, copy of letter sent by second respondent to first respondent stating that the first respondent is not entitled to get any compensation and investigation report of the investigation officer of the second respondent's firm. 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 P3. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that P.W.1 had sent his son to travel in the first respondent's tractor, in order to carry out agricultural work in the land and that the driver of the tractor on negotiating a bend in the land had driven it rashly and resulting in the capsizing of the vehicle into a pit and resulting in the death of the said deceased Venkatesan. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's tractor. 9. R.W.3 Balan, first respondent, had adduced evidence that the deceased Venkatesan had travelled in the tractor only to plough his land and that he was not a gratuitous passenger. 10. R.W.2 Thiguvengadam, investigating officer of the second respondent firm, had adduced evidence that as per the policy of insurance, only one person was permitted to travel in the first respondent's tractor and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.R1. However, the Tribunal had observed that R.W.2 had not clearly stated whether that one person was other than the driver or the driver only. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased had not travelled as a gratuitous passenger and that he had travelled as authorized passenger. 11. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 13 years. As no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per year. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-as compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of income (15,000 X 15) and directed the second respondent Insurance Company, on behalf of the first respondent, to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% 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 second 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 erred in overlooking the fact that the tractor has seating provision for only the driver and as such the observation of the Tribunal that R.W.1 had mentioned that only one person can travel in the tractor and he did not specify as to whether it was the driver of the passenger is unwarranted and unsustainable. 14. 14. It is contended further that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the fact that the injured had submitted claim form claiming the amount towards the damages to the insured tractor, in which the insured had stated that four persons had travelled in the tractor at the time of accident. As unauthorized passengers were carried in the tractor and as the policy conditions of insurance had been violated, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant Insurance Company and fastened the liability only on the owner of the vehicle. It is also contended that sitting on the mudguard of the tractor is against the provisions of the statute and the insurance policy also does not cover such unauthorized passengers. It is also contended that the award passed was excessive and that no amount was deducted for personal expenses of the deceased in computing loss of income. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award, which is against the appellant. 15. The very competent counsel for the claimants has argued that the driver of the tractor had committed the said accident and as such FIR had been registered under Sections 279 and 304(a) I.P.C., which is existing and subsequently the driver was punished. Further, the offending vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. The deceased was aged about 14 years and he was employed as a Tailor and supporting his parents i.e., the claimants herein. The claimants lost their only earning son in the said accident. The investigation officer, who is attached to the insurance company had conducted an enquiry and submitted the report. The said report had been well considered by the Tribunal and they had come to the conclusion that the deceased, who was travelling on the tractor had died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal had framed three issues and decided all the issues on merits and awarded the compensation. However, the Tribunal had not granted compensation under the heads of funeral expenses, transport expenses and loss of love and affection. 16. The highly competent counsel for the third respondent has argued that the Tractor had been insured with the appellant herein and that premium had been remitted regularly to ensure coverage of insurance for the vehicle. 17. However, the Tribunal had not granted compensation under the heads of funeral expenses, transport expenses and loss of love and affection. 16. The highly competent counsel for the third respondent has argued that the Tractor had been insured with the appellant herein and that premium had been remitted regularly to ensure coverage of insurance for the vehicle. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants since the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and there is no seating capacity on the said tractor to accommodate any person other than the driver. Therefore, there is gross violation of policy conditions. This legal point had not been considered by the Tribunal, who had erroneously fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. 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. This Court is of the further view that FIR had been registered against the driver of the vehicle and the said vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. Further, the deceased was aged about 14 years and therefore the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per year and assessed the compensation, which is appropriate. Hence, this Court confirms the said award. 19. As per the Court records, it is seen that the entire award amount together with accrued interest thereon has been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi. 20. Now, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, as per ratio fixed by the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 21. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.