Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2006, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.248 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruppur. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the mother and minor children of the deceased Chandrasekaran, had filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.248 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruppur, claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-from the respondents for the death of the said Chandrasekaran, in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 17.11.2001, when the deceased was riding his moped bearing registration No.TN39 S0994, along with his wife and children as pillion riders and at about 10.00 a.m., when the moped was proceeding towards north on the extreme left of Tiruppur-Dharapuram Road and near Kovilvazhi Nallur pirivu, the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN51 3949, which was coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped. As a result, the deceased Chandrasekaran and his wife sustained severe injuries and died. At the time of accident, the deceased Chandrasekaran was working as a Cooking Contractor for functions 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 lorry bearing registration No.TN51 3949. 4. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter statement, had submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the rider of the moped and not due to any negligence on the part of the first respondent's lorry driver, as alleged in the claim. It is also submitted that the petitioners had to prove that the deceased Chandrasekaran had a valid licence to ride the moped and that it was covered under a valid F.C., to ply on the road. It was submitted that the claim was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the moped bearing registration No.TN39 S0994. It is submitted that the claimants had to prove the age, income, 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. It is submitted that the claimants had to prove the age, income, 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 three issues namely: i. Who is responsible for the accident? ii. Whether the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN39 L0994 are necessary parties to be added in the claim? and iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 6. On the claimants' side three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report, death and legal heir certificate. On the respondents' side no witness was examined and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 mother of the deceased Chandrasekaran had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim 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 lodged against the driver of the first respondent's lorry based on the complaint given by the deceased Chandrasekaran, while he was undergoing treatment at Tiruppur Government Hospital and it is also seen that his wife had also died in the said accident. 8. P.W.2 Madhavan, eye-witness of the accident had adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry. He had further deposed that he had come to know that the wife of the said Chandrasekaran had also died due to injuries sustained in the accident on 17.11.2001. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of Ex.P1 and on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.2 and on observing that no oral or documentary evidence had been let in on the part of the respondents to rebut the manner of accident, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry. Hence, the Tribunal, on observing that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the first respondent's lorry driver, held that the claim is not bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. 9. Hence, the Tribunal, on observing that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the first respondent's lorry driver, held that the claim is not bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. 9. P.W.3 Chandrasekar had adduced evidence that he was working as a Master Cook under the employment of the deceased Chandrasekaran and that the deceased Chandrasekar was a Cooking Contractor and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. However, as no documentary evidence was let in to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the deceased could only be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 18 as it was relevant to the age of the deceased (27 years), awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- as compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of income (4,500 X 2/3 X 12 X 18), Rs.15,000/-was awarded to each of the claimants 2 and 3 under the head of loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the first claimant under 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.6,88,000/-as compensation to the claimants and directed the second respondent, 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 one month from the date of it's order. 10. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that the accident had been caused due to collision of two vehicles, while the deceased was driving his moped carrying four persons from south to north on the wrong side of the road and the lorry, which was coming on the opposite direction was not able to stop as the deceased had suddenly come on the wrong side of the road and invited the accident and therefore the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence upon the deceased and exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. 12. 12. It is contended that even on perusal of the rough sketch marked, it is evident that the deceased had contributed to the occurrence of the accident and hence the Tribunal erred in fixing the entire negligence upon the driver of the lorry of the fourth respondent herein, only on the reason that no contra evidence had been let in by the respondents. 13. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of P.W.3, who claimed that he was working as a Cook Master and failed to see that no proof was produced before it to establish that the witness P.W.3 was working under the deceased and as such the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, without any proof, which is unsustainable. 14. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the first respondent's husband is alive and that she was living only on the income of her husband and therefore the Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent herein is not entitled for any compensation. 15. It is contended further that the Tribunal erred in imposing a condition on the appellant to deposit half of the award amount in Court deposit within two months as a condition precedent for filing an appeal, which is against the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially when the limitation for preferring an appeal in 90 days, as laid down under the statute. It is also contended that the other condition imposed by the Tribunal that if 50% of the award amount is not deposited within a period of two months, the interest that would be calculated upon the award amount would be 12% per annum, without any authority and in violation of the provisions of M.V. Act. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 16. The highly competent counsel for the claimants has submitted that the driver of the lorry had committed the said accident and hence FIR had been levelled against him. The deceased's age was 27 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a Cooking Contractor. The claimants are the young widow and minor children of the deceased and aged about 4 years and 2 years. The mother of the children had also died in the said accident. The deceased's age was 27 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a Cooking Contractor. The claimants are the young widow and minor children of the deceased and aged about 4 years and 2 years. The mother of the children had also died in the said accident. Now, the minors are in a deserted condition. Therefore, the first claimant, who is the paternal grandmother of the children is taking care of the minor children. 17. 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. 18. At the time of admission, this Court has directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount including interest and costs, to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.248 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruppur and also permitted the first claimant to withdraw 50% of her share with entire accrued interest thereon. 19. Now, the first claimant namely Kumarayee @ Kaliammal is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alone in order to meet out the educational expenses of the minor children, lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.248 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruppur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this Judgment. 20. This Court directs the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruppur, to deposit the minors' share amount with proportionate interest thereon, in a nationalized bank, as fixed deposit in the cumulative deposit scheme, till they attain the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the paternal grandmother of the minor claimants. 21. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 10.01.2006, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.248 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Tiruppur, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.