Judgment Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 10.01.2012 in M.C.O.P. No. 306 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District awarding compensation of Rs.28,17,500/- for the death of deceased Kavitha in a road traffic accident on 24.02.2007, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts are that on 24.02.2007, at about 1.45 pm, the deceased Kavitha was travelling in Bajaj Pulsar bearing Registration No. BY-01 AE 9616 as pillion rider in Selaiyur – Velacherry High Road, next to Kamakshi Hospital, near Mayilai Balaji Nagar. At that time, a tanker Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01 C 9869, belonging to the Third Respondent herein and insured with the Appellant Insurance Corporation, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motorcyclists. Due to the impact, the pillion rider Kavitha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the way to Hospital. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker Lorry, the parents of the deceased Kavitha filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.85,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, the Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the accident was solely due to the reckless act of the rider of the Motorcycle. The appellant insurance company denied the occupation, income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the claimants and stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Mr.Ramnath.V.Rao, Human Resources Executive, Tata Consultancy Services, as P.W.2. Exs. The appellant insurance company denied the occupation, income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the claimants and stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Mr.Ramnath.V.Rao, Human Resources Executive, Tata Consultancy Services, as P.W.2. Exs. P.1 to P.52 were marked and the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P.1 - Copy of the FIR Ex.P.2 - Copy of Post Mortem Report Ex.P.3 - S.S.L.C. Mark Certificate of the deceased Kavitha Ex.P.4 - +2 Mark Certificate of the deceased Kavitha Ex.P.5 - Computer Science Mark Certificate of the deceased Kavitha Ex.P.6 - Computer Science Engineering Degree Ex.P.7 - M.B.A. 1st Year Mark List of Kavitha Ex.P.8 - M.B.A. 2nd Year Mark List of Kavitha Ex.P.9 - M.B.A. 3rd Year Mark List of Kavitha Ex.P.10- Transfer Certificate of Kavitha issued by Bharathiyar University Ex.P.11- Appointment Order as Engineer issued by WIPRO Ex.P.12- Salary Slip issued by WIPRO Ex.P.13- Receipt for payment towards Visa Ex.P.14- Recommendation Letter issued by CAPITAL ONE Company Ex.P.15- Recommendation Letter issued by WIPRO for getting Visa Ex.P.16- Passport of Kavitha Ex.P.17- American Visa of Kavitha Ex.P.18- Mark Certificate issued by ORACLE University for obtaining 94.23 % Marks in Web Examination Ex.P.19- Letter issued by SYNTEL Company for having worked as Analyst Programmer while working with WIPRO Ex.P.20- Salary Slip issued by SYNTEL Company for having worked there while working with WIPRO Ex.P.21- Letter issued by TCS Company for appointment as Assistant System Engineer Ex.P.22- Salary Slip issued by TCS Company for having worked as Assistant System Engineer Ex.P.23- Name Card of Kavitha Ex.P.24- Certificate dated 08.01.2007 issued by WIPRO Ex.P.25- Salary Certificate dated 14.03.2007 issued by TCS Ex.P.26- Letter dated 10.5.2007 issued by TCS Ex.P.27- Death Certificate of Kavitha dated 01.3.2007 Ex.P.28- Legal Heirship Certificate Ex.P.29- 1st page of SSLC Book of the First Respondent Ex.P.30- 1st page of SSLC Book of the Second Respondent Ex.P.31- Letter dated 10.10.2006 issued by SYNTEL Ex.P.32- copy of the Driving Licence of Driver of the offending vehicle Ex.P.33- Copy of the RC Book of PY 01/AE 9616 Bajaj Pulsar Ex.P.34- Copy of the Insurance cover note Ex.P.35- Copy of the Insurance policy of Bajaj pulsar Ex.P.36- Copy of the Driving Licence of the Driver of the offending vehicle Ex.P.37- Copy of the RC Book of the Tanker Lorry TN 01/C 9869 Ex.P.38- Copy of the permit of the Tanker Lorry Ex.P.39- Copy of the Insurance Policy of the Tanker Lorry Ex.P.40- Copy of the Charge Sheet Ex.P.41- Income Tax calculation statement and details of Kavitha for the Assessment Year 2005 – 2006 Ex.P.42- Income Tax calculation details of Kavitha for the Assessment Year 2005 – 2006 taken out from Website Ex.P.43- Income Tax calculation statement and details of Kavitha for the Assessment Year 2007 – 2008 Ex.P.44- Notice issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act Ex.P.45- Refund Order issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act Ex.P.46- Letter issued by WIPRO to Kavitha Ex.P.47- Acceptance Letter issued by WIPRO for the Resignation submitted by Kavitha Ex.P.48- Employment Certificate issued by WIPRO to Kavitha Ex.P.49- Acceptance Letter issued by TCS for deposing evidence before Court by PW2 Ex.P.50- Identity Card of Mr. Ramnath V. Roy, H.R., TCS Ex.P.51- Salary Slip of Kavitha for the month of February 2007 Ex.P.52- Letter issued by TCS to Kavitha 5. On the side of Insurance Company, one Mr.Nandakumar was examined as R.W.1 besides examining Mr.Senthilkumar, who is the Investigator, as R.W.2 and Mr.Mani, driver of the Tanker Lorry, was examined as R.W.3. Exs. R.1 to R.9 were marked and the details of which are as follows:- Ex.R.1- Report of the Investigator of the Second Respondent Company Ex.R.2- Copy of the permit of the Tanker Lorry TN 01/C 9869 Ex.R.3- Copy of the M.V. Inspector’s Report regarding Tanker Lorry TN 01/C 9869 Ex.R.4- Copy of the Insurance Policy of the Tanker Lorry TN 01/C 9869 Ex.R.5- Copy of the Second Investigator’s Report of the Second Respondent Company Ex.R.6- Copy of the amended petition before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur Ex.R.7- Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report Ex.R.8- Letter issued by the owner of the vehicle to the Second Respondent Ex.R.9- Letter of the Driver 6. Considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and Ex. P.1-FIR, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Tanker Lorry driver and that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. 7. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, relying on the evidence of P.W.2, Human Resources Executive of the Tata Consultancy Services, where the deceased was working, and Ex.P.25, Salary Certificate dated 14.3.2007 and after deducting statutory deductions, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.35,390/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, being spinster, the Tribunal calculated the contribution to the family as Rs.17,695/- per month (Rs.35,390 X 50% = Rs.17,695/-). Since the deceased was a spinster, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of her parents, applying multiplier "13", calculated the loss of income at Rs.27,60,420/- (Rs.17,695 X 12 X 13). In addition, the Tribunal has also granted compensation under the conventional heads with interest at 7.5% per annum as follows:- Sl.No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income to the parents of the deceased Rs.27,60,420/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents of the deceased (Rs.25,000/- each) Rs. 50,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- ? 50,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 2,000/- ? Total Rs.28,17,420/- rounded off to Rs.28,17,500/- Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 8. The only point that is canvassed by the Insurance Company before this Court is that of their liability. 9. Heard the rival contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company as well as the respondents 1 and 2/Claimants and perused the documents. 10. It is not disputed that the deceased was a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and she was hit by a Tanker Lorry belonging to the Third Respondent herein and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company. It is alleged by the claimants that the negligence of the driver of the Third Respondent is the cause of the accident and made a claim jointly and severally from the Appellant Insurance Company and the Third Respondent owner. A complaint has been registered and the same is evident from Ex.P.1 FIR wherein it is stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker lorry. Ex.P.40 is the charge sheet filed against the driver Mani? which is not disputed by the third Respondent owner of the lorry. Though it is claimed that the rider of the driver of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, it has not been explained as to how they were negligent in causing the accident. The FIR has been filed only against the driver of the tanker lorry. From the evidence of P.W.1 and other Exhibits, it is evident that the accident was caused only by the driver of the tanker lorry belonging to the Third Respondent. Ex.P.37 shows that the third respondent is the owner of the tanker lorry, who has got permit under Ex.P.38. Ex.P.36 is the valid driving licence of the Driver of the Tanker Lorry and Ex.P.39 is the copy of Insurance policy for the said lorry which was in force on the date of accident. 11. R.W.1, in his cross-examination, has stated as follows:- “TAMIL” From the above evidence, it could be seen that it is admitted by the said witness that the Investigating Report is issued by the person, who has been appointed by their own institution. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in discrediting the same. 12. 11. R.W.1, in his cross-examination, has stated as follows:- “TAMIL” From the above evidence, it could be seen that it is admitted by the said witness that the Investigating Report is issued by the person, who has been appointed by their own institution. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in discrediting the same. 12. R.W.2 is the Insurance Investigator, who has deposed in the cross-examination as under:- “TAMIL” 13. From the evidence of R.W.2 also, it is seen that they are only the interested testimony of the Insurance Company and they are not independent witnesses. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in not considering the evidence and report of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and rightly held that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Third Respondent. The evidence of R.W.3 driver is also not helpful to the Insurance Company to absolve them of their liability as it has been admitted by R.W.1 himself that there was a valid policy and valid licence to the Driver. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured of his liability. As the lorry is duly insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and there was a valid licence on the date of accident, which caused the death of the deceased Kavitha, and none of the policy conditions are violated, there is no ground made out by the appellant Insurance Company to absolve themselves of their liability. 14. In the result, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Third Respondent, owner of the lorry, which was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and the liability of the Third Respondent is to be indemnified by the appellant Insurance Company by paying the compensation to the claimants is correct. 15. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Award passed by the Tribunal. No costs.