JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA (MD).No.1039 of 2005, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Sivagangai. 2. The petitioners, who are the parents, wife and children of the (deceased) Balasubramanian, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-from the respondents for the death of the said Balasubramanian in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 13.05.2000, when the deceased Balasubramanian along with his father, the 2nd petitioner and his grandson Prasanna were proceeding on the Sivagangai to Thondi road, after purchasing a some items for their home and at about 04.45 p.m., when they were nearing the Vinayagar Temple and proceeding from west towards east on the road, the 1st respondents Tractor bearing registration No.TN-63A-5178, coming from behind them, in the same direction and driven by the son of the 1st respondent, is the 3rd respondent, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased Balasubramanian and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the (deceased) Balasubramanian sustained severe injuries and was initially admitted at Government Hospital, Sivagangai and later on was admitted at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. But inspite of medical treatment, the (deceased) Balasubramanian succumbed to his injuries on 22.08.2001. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was a milk vendor earning Rs.3,000/-per month. As the 1st respondent, the owner of the Tractor had died during the pendancy of the case, the petitioners, who are the dependents on the income of the deceased have filed the claim as against the 2nd and 3rd respondents who are the insurer of the 1st respondents Tractor and the son of the 1st respondent respectively. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioners have to prove through documentary evidence that the 1st respondents tractor had been insured with them at the time of accident. It was submitted that the driver of the 1st respondents tractor had driven the tractor bearing registration No.TN-63A-5178 carefully and cautiously on the Sivagangai to Thondi road, near Vinayagar temple and that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the deceased Balasubramanian. It was submitted that the driver of the 1st respondents tractor had driven the tractor bearing registration No.TN-63A-5178 carefully and cautiously on the Sivagangai to Thondi road, near Vinayagar temple and that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the deceased Balasubramanian. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased Balasubramanian and the averments in the claim that the (deceased) Balasubramanian had taken medical treatment continuously from 13.05.2000 to 22.08.2001, were also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation from the respondents?; (2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to get?. 5. On the petitioners side, the 2nd petitioner i.e., the father of the deceased Balasubramanian was examined as PW.1 and eight documents were marked as exs.P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-charge sheet; Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P5-ration card; Ex.P6-x rays; Ex.P7-copy of death certificate of deceased Balasubramanian; Ex.P8-medical treatment records pertaining to deceased Balasubramanian. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents. 6. It is seen from the complaint given by the (deceased) Balasubramanian that the 1st petitioner, i.e., the father of the deceased had also accompanied him at the time of accident. PW.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. He deposed evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the 3rd respondent. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R, it is seen that a criminal case had been filed as against the 3rd respondent, who is the son of the 1st respondent and that the charge sheeted has been filed as against him as per ex.P3. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R, it is seen that a criminal case had been filed as against the 3rd respondent, who is the son of the 1st respondent and that the charge sheeted has been filed as against him as per ex.P3. Hence, the tribunal on scrutiny of exhibits P1, P3 and the motor vehicle inspector's report marked as ex.P4 and on perusal of evidence of PW.1 and on observing that the 2nd respondent had not taken any steps to examine the driver of the tractor, i.e., the 3rd respondent to rebut the claim regarding manner of accident, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's tractor namely the 3rd respondent and hence held the 2nd and 3rd respondents liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 7. The tribunal, on scrutiny of ex.P2, wound certificate and ex.P6-x rays and ex.P8-medial treatment records observed that the deceased Balasubramanian had sustained grievous injuries in the accident and that he had received continuous treatment, till August 2000, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, the tribunal was not inclined to accept the contentions laid down on the side of the 2nd respondent that the death of the deceased Balasubramanian was not due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident but due to some other reasons as the accident had occurred on 13.05.2000 and that the deceased Balasubramanian had died only on 22.08.2001. The tribunal, on scrutiny of ex.P2, wound certificate, observed that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident. Though the petitioners had stated that the deceased was a milk vendor and earning Rs.3,000/-per month, no documentary evidence had been marked to prove this contention. Hence, the tribunal, on holding that the deceased could have earned a sum of Rs.40/-per day and adopting a multiplier of 13', held that the deceased Balasubramanian could have earned a sum of Rs.1,87,200/- on deducting 1/3rd of income towards his personal expenses, the tribunal held that the deceased could have contributed Rs.1,24,800/-(Rs.40/-x30x2/3x12x13) to his family and awarded this amount as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the tribunal awarded Rs.1,31,800/- as compensation to the petitioners with costs and directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to jointly and severally deposit the said compensation, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, within three months from the date of its order. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/National Insurance company Limited has preferred the above appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tribunal below ought to have held that the appellant/2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner of the insured vehicle since there was no policy of insurance in force at the time of accident. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have appreciated the defence of the insurance company as mentioned in the statement of objections and ought to have called the respondents 1 to 6 to prove that there was a policy of insurance in force at the time of accident. It was also contended that there was no clinching proof in support of the plea of the respondents 1 to 6 that the deceased died only due to the impact of the injury sustained in the road accident. It was contended that the policy of insurance for the 1st respondent's vehicle was valid only from 19.09.1998 to 18.09.1999 and that the owner of the vehicle had not renewed the insurance policy which expired on 18.09.1999 and as such on the date of impugned accident i.e., 13.05.2000, there was no policy of insurance in force. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased had met with an accident and the same had been established by production of F.I.R, which had been registered by the Inspector of Police, who is the investigation Officer in the said case. As per, Criminal Court proceedings, it was confirmed that the deceased met with an accident and subsequently he had died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The deceased is an ignorant person and the claimants are also ignorant persons and they are involved in agricultural operations as coolies. As per, Criminal Court proceedings, it was confirmed that the deceased met with an accident and subsequently he had died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The deceased is an ignorant person and the claimants are also ignorant persons and they are involved in agricultural operations as coolies. Therefore, due to lack of legal knowledge, the claimants had not conducted a post mortem of the deceased body to ascertain the nexus between the injuries sustained by him leading to his death. The learned counsel further submits that immediately after the death of Balasubramanian, as per family customs, he was buried, after informing the relatives and friends. The claimants family situation is in a pathetic condition at the time of death of Balasubramanian. Therefore, the relatives and friends of the said Balasubramanian had consoled them. Therefore, the necessary records namely post mortem report had been produced. Even then, there is a prima facie case for claiming compensation against the insurance company. Sufficient opportunities were given to the respondent/insurance company to establish their defence before the tribunal but they did not appear. Inspite of this, the learned tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the insurance company and on perusing the relevant records produced by the claimants, passed the award. As per tribunal's calculation, the award amount is higher than the claim amount. All the claimant's are aged parents, wife and children of the deceased and were depending upon the income of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death and the only bread winner of the family. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 2nd respondent had expired and therefore the learned counsel had filed a memo and requested the counsel, who is appearing for the claimants to furnish the legal heirs of the deceased/2nd respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant filed returned cover stating that the 2nd respondent had not received the summons, since she had expired. The learned counsel further submits that the insurance policy was not in force at the time of accident i.e., 13.05.2001 and that the insurance policy had been in force only upto 18.09.1999 and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, since policy was not in force. The learned counsel further submits that the insurance policy was not in force at the time of accident i.e., 13.05.2001 and that the insurance policy had been in force only upto 18.09.1999 and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, since policy was not in force. The learned counsel has produced a volume of records pertaining to premium of insurance and proved that the insurance policy for the offending vehicle was not in force at the time of accident. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on 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 liability and quantum of compensation. As per this Court records, it is seen that the insurance company had deposited 50% of the award amount. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation, as per the tribunal order with accrued interest thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased, at present are permitted to withdraw the said compensation amount, including interest and divide it equally amongst themselves, after producing legal heir certificate from the Taluk Tahsildar concerned, along with a memo and a copy of this court's order. The appellant, is at liberty to recover the said compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. 12. After, filing a memo along with the legal heir certificate, the learned tribunal is directed to disburse the amount equally amongst the legal heirs of the deceased, at once, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivagangai. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Sivagangai, dated 24.11.2004, is confirmed. No costs.