Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the appeal in CMA(MD).No.663 of 2010, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.786 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioners who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Selvaraj have preferred the claim in M.C.O.P.No.786 of 2007, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Selvaraj in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 30.04.2007, when the deceased Selvaraj was travelling in the 1st respondents load auto bearing registration No.TN-74W-2318, as the loadman and owner of Coconuts, from Nagercoil to Sankarnagar and at about 02.00 a.m., on 01.05.2007, when the auto was near Therkoor on the Tirunelveli to Nagercoil main road, the driver of the auto drove the auto at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and entered it into the edge of the road due to the which the driver lost control of the vehicle which capsized on the road side ditch. In the impact, the (deceased) Selvaraj sustained multiple injuries and was taken to Sakthi Hospital at Vannarpettai and admitted as an inpatient. Despite medical treatment being given to him, the (deceased) Selvaraj succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 31 years and was running a shop at Kuruthankodu in Kanyakumari District and trading in coconuts. He used to hire the load auto and transport the goods on his own and was earning not less than Rs.10,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioners, who are dependents on the income of the deceased have filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the load auto bearing registration No.TN-74W-2318. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has admitted that the 1st respondents load auto had been insured with them and that the coverage of insurance was valid for the period from 08.04.2007 to 07.04.2008. It was submitted that the deceased was travelling in the said load auto as an unauthorized gratuitous passenger and that no coverage has been extended to such passengers as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It was submitted that the driver of the auto was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto at the time of accident. It was submitted that the driver of the auto was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. On the side of the petitioners, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P11 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-copy of post mortem certificate; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P4-copy of observation mahazar; Ex.P5-copy of rough sketch; Ex.P6-copy of charge sheet; Ex.P7-medical bills (series); Exs.P8 and P9-prescriptions (series); Ex.P10-medical bills (series) and Ex.P11-legal heir certificate. On the respondent's side, one witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 namely ex.R1-insurance policy and Ex.R2- R.C book. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TN-74W-2318; (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from the respondents, and if so, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to get?. 6. PW.2, Nagarajan, had adduced evidence that he is a cleaner of a lorry and that at the time of accident, he was standing by the side of the road, since the lorry in which he travelled developed some technical snap and so he was attending to the repair. He has deposed that the load auto which was coming on the same road was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hence it went out off the tar portion of road and capsized on the left side. He deposed that the victim got trapped under the auto and that they extracted him and admitted him at Sakthi hospital, Tirunelveli. During cross examination, he had admitted that he did not prefer any complaint to the police and that no statement was recorded by the police as well. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R, it is seen that the deceased himself had given the complaint wherein he has stated that he was doing coolie and that on the night of 30.04.2007, when he was travelling in the load auto bearing registration No.TN-74W-2318, which was carrying a load of coconuts and that when he was sitting a top the coconuts, the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner due to which the auto had capsized. Hence, the tribunal, on observing that a criminal case has been registered against the 1st respondent's driver and that no witnesses had been examined on the side of the 2nd respondent, to rebut the petitioners claim regarding the manner of accident and on considering evidence of PW.2, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's auto driver. 7. RW.1, Jegandeep, employee of the 2nd respondent's firm has adduced evidence that the victim had travelled as a gratuitous passenger and that the coverage of policy is not extended to cover the risk of such passengers and hence the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation. However, on cross examination, he had stated that as per the conditions of policy, two passengers are allowed to travel in the said vehicle. Hence, the tribunal on opining that the deceased had travelled as a loadman of the goods (i.e., coconuts) at the time of accident and not as the owner and the deceased himself had stated at the time of filing the F.I.R that he was a Coolie and travelled a top the coconuts opined that he could not be termed as a gratuitous passenger and hence held the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 8. It is an admitted fact that the victim met with an accident on 01.05.2007 and died only on 14.05.2007. PW.1 had stated in her evidence that her husband was doing coconut business and earning Rs.10,000/-per month, she had deposed that after the accident, he was taken to Sakthi hospital at Vannarpettai and took treatment as an inpatient and that in spite of treatment, he had succumbed to his injuries. In support of her evidence, she had marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P11. The Tribunal, on considering that the deceased had been an inpatient for 14 days in the hospital on considering exhibits P7 and P10 and observing that all the bills are supported by ex.P8 and P9, prescriptions awarded a sum of Rs.74,939/- to the petitioners under the head of medical expenses. The Tribunal, on considering that the deceased had been an inpatient for 14 days in the hospital on considering exhibits P7 and P10 and observing that all the bills are supported by ex.P8 and P9, prescriptions awarded a sum of Rs.74,939/- to the petitioners under the head of medical expenses. The tribunal on observing that the deceased was aged 31 years as per ex.P2-post mortem certificate and on holding that the deceased being a coolie engaged in transporting coconuts could have earned Rs.5,000/-per month and an adopting a multiplier of 17, as was relevant to the age of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-(Rs.5,000/-x2/3x12x17) as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the 1st petitioner under the head of loss of consortium and also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the other petitioners, under the head of loss of love and affection. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioners for the mental shock and stress they endured due to the death of the deceased; Rs.5,000/-was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,19,940/-as compensation to the petitioners, with proportionate costs and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit within three months from the date of its order. After such deposit was made, the 2nd respondent was permitted to recover the compensation amount from the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the shoulders of the appellant, even after having found that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger, and that the tribunal has got no justification in directing the appellant to satisfy the award at the first instance, against the provisions of the motor vehicle act. It was contended that the tribunal is not justified in giving such a direction which is an exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under section 142 of the Constitution of India and such a direction is not available to any other Court except the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also contended that there was no justification for the tribunal to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- even after having found that there is no proof about the avocation and monthly income of the deceased. It was contended that the award passed by the tribunal is excessive and hence it has to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased was a coconut merchant and he was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. All the five claimants are depending upon the income of the deceased. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses instead of 1/4th as the claimants are 5 in numbers. The learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection to the minor children and aged parents of the deceased. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased was travelling along with his goods as a load man and not as a gratuitous passenger. 11. 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 is of the view that the income of the deceased which had been fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the higher side, in the absence of documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court fixes the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-per month. After deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses and on adopting a multiplier of 17', this Court awards a sum of Rs.6,12,000/-(Rs.4,000/-x3/4x12x17) as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income; Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the 1st petitioner towards loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/-each is awarded to the claimants 2nd to 5th under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/-is awarded for transport and Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of medical expenses. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. 12. As per this Court records, it is seen that this Court had imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. 13. Now, it is open to the claimants 1, 4 and 5 to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,02,000/-Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively, with proportionate interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.786 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. This Court directs the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to deposit the 2nd and 3rd minor claimants apportioned share amount of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each, with accrued interest thereon, in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit in cumulative deposit scheme till the minor claimants attain the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the mother of the minor claimants namely the 1st claimant in the said original petition. The appellant is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation paid, with accrued interests thereon, after filing a memo. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.786 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, is modified, dated 27.10.2009. No costs.