Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd and 3rd respondents have preferred the appeal in CMA (MD).No.1163 of 2004, against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.230 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle District Judge, Srivilliputhur. 2. The petitioners who are the wife, children of the deceased Aadhimoolam, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2000, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-from the respondents, for the death of the said Aadhimoolam in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 29.11.1999, at about 04.00 p.m., when the deceased Aadhimoolam was waiting at the Kannanallur road, near Gundara in Kerala State, after receiving orders for some goods from one Mathew, the 2nd respondent's jeep bearing registration No.KLR-5475, coming on the same road and driven by its driver i.e., the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed against the deceased Aadhimoolam and caused the accident. In the impact, the (deceased) Aadhimoolam sustained injuries all over his body and was admitted at the RCC Adorement hospital, Perumpuzha, wherein first aid was given and he was subsequently admitted at Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, but inspite of treatment, the (deceased) Aadhimoolam succumbed to his injuries on 30.11.1999. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 50 years and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim as against the 1st , 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-7R-5475. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased Aadhimoolam. It was submitted that on 29.11.1999, when the driver of the 1st respondent's jeep was driving the jeep in a careful and cautious manner and observing all the traffic rules and regulations and driving the jeep on the left side of the road, the (deceased) Aadhimoolam, without noticing the jeep had come in front of it and had caused the accident. It was submitted that the jeep had been covered under a policy of insurance valid from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2000 and that the accident had occurred on 29.11.1999 at 04.00 p.m. It was submitted that on the date of accident, the vehicle had not been covered under a valid policy of insurance. 4. It was submitted that the jeep had been covered under a policy of insurance valid from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2000 and that the accident had occurred on 29.11.1999 at 04.00 p.m. It was submitted that on the date of accident, the vehicle had not been covered under a valid policy of insurance. 4. The 3rd respondent, in his counter had also accepted the contentions raised in the 2nd respondent's counter. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-7R-5475?; (2) Was the vehicle covered under a valid policy of insurance with the 3rd respondent at the time of accident?; (3) If so, what is the quantum of compensation which the petitioners are entitled to get? 6. On the petitioners side, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P10 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R (Malayalam); Ex.P2-F.I.R translated in tamil; Ex.P3-copy of charge sheet; Ex.P4-translated version of charge sheet in tamil; Ex.P5-copy of post mortem report dated 04.12.1999; Ex.P6-copy of observation Mahazar (in Malayalam) dated 01.12.1999; Ex.P7-translated version of observation mahazar (in tamil); Ex.P8-commercial taxes department order regarding the firm namely "Mala Enterprises" run by the deceased Aadhimoolam dated 12.11.1990; Ex.P9-receipt showing payment mode by deceased Aadhimoolam on behalf of the firm "Thirumal traders"; Ex.P10-commercial taxes department order pertaining to the firm "Thirumal traders" run by the deceased Aadhimoolam. On the respondent's side, ten documents were marked. 7. PW.2, Mariyappan Chettiar had adduced evidence that he is acquainted with the deceased Aadhimoolam and that he used to visit Kerala in order to conduct his business in oil and cow feed and that the deceased Aadhimoolam was also running a business in oil and cow feed. He deposed that on 29.11.1999, he and the (deceased) Aadhimoolam and one Rajendran they had travelled by train from Rajapalayam to Kunrarai, near Kollam in Kerala, in order to do business. He deposed that on 29.11.1999, he and the (deceased) Aadhimoolam and one Rajendran they had travelled by train from Rajapalayam to Kunrarai, near Kollam in Kerala, in order to do business. He deposed that they had procured an order from one Mathew in Kunrarai and were waiting at the Kunrarai bus stand in order to board a bus to Kannanur and that at about 04.00 p.m., the jeep bearing registration No.KL-7R-5475, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the (deceased) Aadhimoolam, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. He deposed that he had admitted the injured Aadhimoolam at R.C.C Hospital at Perumpuzhai and was referred to Thiruvananthapuram government Hospital, for better treatment, but inspite of treatment, the (deceased) Aadhimoolam had died on 30.11.1999. He deposed that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the jeep and that the police had filed a criminal case against the driver of the jeep based on the complaint given by the said Rajendran, who had accompanied him. He deposed that after postmortem was done on the body of the deceased Aadhimoolam, his body had been brought to Rajapalayam through a private Ambulance van and that he had paid Rs.5,000/- towards ambulance charges. 8. PW.3, Sibu had adduced evidence that his native place was Thiruvananthapuram and that he is working at Rajapalayam and that he knew how to write and speak in Tamil and Malayalam. He deposed that the exhibits marked as P1,P3,P6 are written in Malayalam and that the translated version of these exhibits are marked as exs.P2, P4 and P7 respectively. 9. It is seen on scrutiny of ex.P1, that the complaint regarding the accident had been given by one Mathew and that it has been given based on the information given to Mathew by PW.2 i.e., Mariappan. On scrutiny of Exs.P6 and P7, observation mahazar, it is seen that the police had been shown the site of accident by one Natarajan and that the said Natarajan had been shown as the 2nd witness in the charge sheet filed by the police as per exs.P3 and P4. It is also seen that the jeep driver had not been examined as a witness to refute the contentions laid down on the side of the petitioners. It is also seen that the jeep driver had not been examined as a witness to refute the contentions laid down on the side of the petitioners. Hence, the tribunal on considering that the accident had occurred in Kerala and that the local residents have been shown as witnesses for convenience negated the contentions laid down on the respondent's side that as PW.2 had been listed as an eyewitness in the charge sheet, he had not seen the occurrence of accident. Hence, the tribunal on scrutiny of exs.P2,P4 and P7, the translated versions of exhibits P1, P3 and P6 and after considering the oral evidence of PW.2, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep bearing registration No.KL-7R-5475. 10. RW.1, Mohan, the Assistant Administrative Officer, in the 2nd respondent's regional office at Sivakasi, has adduced evidence that the 1st respondent's jeep bearing registration No.KL-7R-5475 had been covered under a policy of insurance with the 3rd respondent for the period from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2000 and he had marked the copy of policy as Ex.R3 and the copy of the policy valid from 28.11.1998 to 27.11.1999 as ex.R4. He deposed that the 1st respondent had paid the premium towards policy of insurance on 29.11.1999 as per receipt marked as ex.R5 and counterfoil book of receipts as ex.R8. He had further marked as ex.P9, the proposal from given by the vehicle owner's office, on scrutiny of which it is seen that the period from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2000 and that the vehicle had not been covered under the insurance policy on the date of accident i.e., 29.11.1999. However, RW.1, in his cross examination that the coverage of insurance for the 1st respondent's vehicle ended on 27.11.1999 as per ex.R4 and that their office was closed on 27.11.1999 and 28.11.1999 on Saturday and Sunday. He deposed that the premium for ex.R3, policy had been paid on 29.11.1999 and the even in Ex.R6, it has been mentioned that the premium for policy of insurance was paid on 29.11.1999 and that the policy of insurance comes into effect as soon as the premium for vehicle was paid. 11. He deposed that the premium for ex.R3, policy had been paid on 29.11.1999 and the even in Ex.R6, it has been mentioned that the premium for policy of insurance was paid on 29.11.1999 and that the policy of insurance comes into effect as soon as the premium for vehicle was paid. 11. On scrutiny of ex.R3, it is seen that the policy form had been signed by the 1st respondent on 29.11.1999 itself as such the contentions raised by the respondent that the insurance policy was only valid for the period extending from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2000 was not accepted by the tribunal. 12. The tribunal, on considering that the premium for policy of insurance had been paid on 29.11.1999 itself and that as no information had been mentioned in the said policy regarding exact time of payment and on considering that the earlier policy taken for the vehicle was valid upto 27.11.1999 and that the intervening two days prior to 29.11.1999 were holidays, held that the 1st respondent's jeep had been covered under a policy of insurance with the 3rd respondent on the date of accident i.e., 29.11.1999. 13. PW.1, Panchali, the wife of the deceased Aadhimoolam had adduced evidence that her husband was aged 50 years at the time of his death. On scrutiny of ex.P5-post mortem reports it is seen that the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of his death. She deposed that her husband was running a trading firm in the name of "Mala Enterprises" and "Thirumal Traders", trading in oil, cow feeds and other items and that he was contributing a sum of Rs.6,000/-to his family which was exclusive of his personal expenses. In support of her evidence, she had marked exs.P8, P9 and P10. She further deposed that 2nd and 3rd petitioners have married and that the 2nd petitioner is a B.A graduate but still unemployed. She deposed that she had not marked any document to show proof regarding salary earned by her husband. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of exhibits P8, P9 and P10 held that the deceased Aadhimoolam could have earned Rs.2,5000/- per month through his business. The Tribunal, on deducting Rs.900/- for the personal expenses of the deceased, held that the deceased could have contributed of Rs.1,600/- per month to the petitioners. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of exhibits P8, P9 and P10 held that the deceased Aadhimoolam could have earned Rs.2,5000/- per month through his business. The Tribunal, on deducting Rs.900/- for the personal expenses of the deceased, held that the deceased could have contributed of Rs.1,600/- per month to the petitioners. The Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 13', relevant to the age of the deceased (50 years) awarded a compensation of Rs.2,49,600/-(Rs.1,600x12x13) to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- was awarded to the other petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,74,600/-as compensation to the petitioners and directed the 1st and 3rd respondents to jointly and severally to deposit the said sum together wit interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation within 60 days from the date of its order. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal erred in basing its findings on the F.I.R and the uncorroborated evidence of PW.2 and in holding that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the Jeep. It was pointed out that the tribunal failed to note that coverage of insurance for the said vehicle was valid from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2000 and that on the date of accident, i.e., 29.11.1999, the vehicle was not covered under a valid policy of insurance. It was contended that the tribunal erred in holding that since the proposal of ex.R5 did not mention the extract time of commencement of the policy, the insurance company was at risk while the proposal was given and erred in holding that the cover should be deemed to have commenced from the time of proposal and in totally overlooking the testimony of RW.1, the official of the insurance company, who had categorically explained the legal implications in respect of coverage of risk. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 15. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 15. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has marked the following citations reported in New India Assurance Company Limited rep. by its Branch Manager Vs. 1.Amaravel, 2.Arivazhagan. "Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), sections 146 and 147 – Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), Section 64-VB- premium paid on 20.08.2004 for Insurance Coverage from 23.08.2004 to 22.08.2005 – Accident took place on 21.08.2004 – whether insurer can be held liable – whether tribunal wrong in holding that there was insurance coverage as 21.08.2004 – premium through paid on 20.08.2004, proposal form mentioned period of insurance coverage from 23.08.2004 to 22.08.2005- on date of payment on 20.08.2004 insurance policy not in force – duty of insurer was to ask owner to mention period in proposal from as 20.08.2004 to 29.08.2005 since policy was not in force on payment date i.e., 20.08.2004 – non application of mind on part of insurer giving rise to such lacuna – insurer, held liable to pay compensation – once a premium is paid it is expected that policy will be functional from time of payment insurer and owner cannot act on their own prerogative." 16. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased's age was 50 years and he was doing commission business and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The same was confirmed through documentary evidence as per exhibits P8. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive adequate compensation. The learned counsel further submits that the premium amount had been paid on 29.11.1999. The insurance company had also issued receipt for the same. As such, the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. The learned counsel further submits that the tribunal had not granted adequate compensation to the claimant as he was the only earning member of his family. 17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs on 27.04.2004. 18. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs on 27.04.2004. 18. Now, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon, as per tribunal order, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals if any, already made by the claimants. 19. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.230 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur, is confirmed, dated 02.08.2003. No costs.