Judgment : The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased Noushat, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, from the respondents, for the the death of the said Noushat in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 01.11.2007, at about 02.30 a.m., when the deceased Noushat was travelling in a car bearing registration No.TN37 W2376, along with one Anusuya and when the car was proceeding on Ottanchathiram-Dharapuram Road and near Indian Hotel, the first respondent drove the car at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he lost control and dashed it against a tree on the side of the road. As a result, the front portion of the car was fully damaged and the first respondent, the deceased Noushat and Anusuya also sustained grievous injuries. They were admitted at Dharapuram Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given. The deceased Noushat was subsequently admitted at Kovai Medical Centre Hospital as an inpatient in the Intensive Care Unit. But, in spite of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased Noushat was aged 39 years and was working as a car driver and earning Rs.6,000/-per month. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.TN37 W2376. 4. The third respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the first respondent and that it was caused only due to the negligence of the deceased Noushat, who had driven the car at the time of accident. It was submitted that a false complaint had been lodged against the first respondent. Further, it was submitted that even in the claim petition, it had been mentioned that the deceased Noushat was working as a driver of the second respondent's car and as such the claim is not maintainable. It was submitted that a false complaint had been lodged against the first respondent. Further, it was submitted that even in the claim petition, it had been mentioned that the deceased Noushat was working as a driver of the second respondent's car and as such the claim is not maintainable. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were also not admitted. Further, it was submitted that the claimant had colluded with the second respondent and lodged a false claim. Further, it was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. 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, copy of postmortem report, rough sketch, observation mahazar, copy of M.V.I's report, copy of charge sheet, death certificate, driving licence of the deceased, marriage registration certificate, birth certificate of the second claimant and passport of the deceased. On the respondents' side, no witness was let in and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 wife of the deceased 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 P12. 8. P.W.2 S.M.Riazuddin, eye-witness of the accident, had also adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. On scrutiny of Ex.P1 and P6, it is seen that the FIR and charge sheet had been filed against the first respondent. Though it was contended on the side of the third respondent that only the deceased Noushat had driven the car at the time of accident, no oral or documentary evidence had been let in to prove their contentions. 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 car by the first respondent. 9. 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 car by the first respondent. 9. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that her husband was aged 39 years at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs.6,000/-per month. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident. 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.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- (4,500 X 2/3 X 12 X 16) as compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of income, Rs.5,000/-was awarded for transport expenses and Rs.20,000/-was awarded for loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,01,000/-as compensation to the claimants and directed the third respondent, who is the insurer of the second respondent's car, to deposit the said sum 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 one month from the date of it's order. 10. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent 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 erred in accepting the deceased as occupant of car and in holding that the third respondent herein was driving the car as the criminal proceedings initiated against the third respondent had not yet been concluded. It is contended further that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on negligence/person driving the vehicle requires re-appreciation in view of the contention raised by the third respondent herein in the criminal case filed against him. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the contribution at Rs.3,000/- per month without taking into consideration the nature of employment. It is also contended that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. It is also contended that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The very competent counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the FIR had been registered against the driver of the car, who had committed the said accident in a negligent manner. In order to prove the negligence, FIR and observation mahazar were marked as exhibits before the Tribunal. Further, the criminal case had been proceeded with against the driver of the offending car. The said car had been insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The deceased was a driver by profession and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the negligence, liability and income of the deceased, the award had been passed. As such, there is no lacuna in the impugned award. 13. 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. Further, the Tribunal had framed necessary issues and decided the same on the basis of oral and documentary evidence in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the above appeal does not have enough force to allow it and the impugned award is found fit to be executed. 14. This Court has already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire award amount together with interest, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram, and subsequently permitted the first claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount apportioned to her share with accrued interest. 15. Now, the first claimant is permitted to withdraw her remaining 50% of the award amount apportioned to her share with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 16. 15. Now, the first claimant is permitted to withdraw her remaining 50% of the award amount apportioned to her share with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 16. Further, this Court directs the learned Sub-Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram, to deposit the minor's apportioned share amount in a nationalized bank, as fixed deposit, in the cumulative deposit scheme until such time the minor attains the age of major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor. 17. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 18.06.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Dharapuram, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.