JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1501 of 2010, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. 2. The petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased Murugan has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2009, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Murugan in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 31.01.2009, at about 09.30 p.m, when the (deceased) Murugan was riding on his Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-57B-5004, from Kethaiarumbu towards Ottanchatram on the Ottanchathiram-Vedachandur road, on the left side of the road and when he was riding motor cycle near the Kalanjipatti burial ground, from east towards west, the 1st respondent's van bearing registration No.TN-47H-5730 coming on the same road from west towards east and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the motor cycle and caused the accident. In the impact, the (deceased) Murugan was thrown out of his vehicle and sustained severe and grievious injuries on his head and other parts of his body and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was doing Red chilly business and earning Rs.6,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner, who is the dependant on the on the income of her deceased son had filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the van bearing registration No.TN-47H-5730. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased as well as the manner of accident. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the deceased Murugan, who had suddenly tried to cross the road. It was submitted that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-57B-5004, have to be added as necessary parties in the claim. It was submitted that the deceased Murugan did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. It was submitted that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-57B-5004, have to be added as necessary parties in the claim. It was submitted that the deceased Murugan did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's van driver? (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P5 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 31.01.2009; Ex.P2-Post mortem report dated 31.01.2009; Ex.P3-death certificate dated 31.01.2009; Ex.P4-legal heir certificate dated 19.02.2009; Ex.P5-driving licence of the deceased Murugan dated 26.06.2007. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents. 6. DW.2, Natraj, the eyewitness to the accident had deposed that on 30.01.2009, at about 09.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on the Vedachandur to Ottanchathiram road and nearing Kalanjipatti burial ground, on the left side of the raod, he had seen the motorcyclist proceeding ahead of him on the said road and that the van coming in the opposite side and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner suddenly come to the right of the road and dashed against the motorcyclist and caused the accident. He further deposed that he had gone near the place of occurrence and found that the (deceased) Murugan had sustained injuries on his head and died on the spot. 7. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of the F.I.R marked as Ex.R1 and on considering the evidence of PW.2 and on scrutiny of Ex.P6, driving licence of the deceased Murugan, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van. 8. PW.1, had adduced evidence that her (deceased) son Murugan was aged 25 years and that he was doing Red chilly business and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. She deposed that her husband had died ten years ago and that she was dependant on the income of her deceased son for her livelihood, 9. 8. PW.1, had adduced evidence that her (deceased) son Murugan was aged 25 years and that he was doing Red chilly business and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. She deposed that her husband had died ten years ago and that she was dependant on the income of her deceased son for her livelihood, 9. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P2, Post mortem report observed that the age of the deceased Murugan, it is seen that the date of birth of the deceased Murugan had been mentioned as 10.05.1984. Hence, the Tribunal, held that the age of the deceased was 26 years, at the time of accident. The Tribunal on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the deceased held that the notional income earned by the deceased was Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 17, as was relevant to the age of the deceased and on deducting half of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,08,000/-(Rs.4,000/-x1/2x12x17). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to jointly or severally 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 deposit, within one month from the date of its order. 10. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the claims Tribunal , after having observed that no document was filed to prove the income of the deceased, ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. It was also pointed out that the application of multiplier of 17, taking into consideration the age of the deceased, for determining the quantum of compensation is not correct and that only the age of the parents should be considered to determine the appropriate multiplier. It was pointed out that as the age of the mother of the deceased was 48 years on the date of accident, only the multiplier relevant to this age should have been adopted by the Tribunal, while assessing quantum of compensation. 11. It was pointed out that as the age of the mother of the deceased was 48 years on the date of accident, only the multiplier relevant to this age should have been adopted by the Tribunal, while assessing quantum of compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently argued that the claimant is a widowed lady and depending upon her son's income. The accident took place in the year 2009. At that time, the deceased was aged 25 years and doing red chilly business and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But the learned Tribunal had Suo moto reduced the income of the deceased from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of love and affection. The Tribunal had not granted compensation under the head of funeral expenses. The Tribunal had not granted compensation for transport expenses incurred as dead body was taken to hospital and after post mortem, the body was taken to the resident of the claimant. It was clearly proved that the deceased owned a two wheeler motor cycle for his business purpose and as such maintenance expenses for the motor cycle were also incurred. So it is evident that the deceased was earning sufficient income. 12. On considering 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 liability and quantum of compensation. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court had directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount as per Tribunal order on 27.10.2010. Subsequently, this Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount on 01.03.2011. 13. It is now open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.A.C.O.P.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any as per this Court's earlier order. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed M.A.C.O.P.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul,is confirmed, dated 23.12.2009. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed M.A.C.O.P.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul,is confirmed, dated 23.12.2009. No costs.