JUDGMENT 1. In the accident, which occurred on 21.04.2008, involving two vehicles TVS Victor Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mettupalayam, driven by Gnanasekar and a Suzuki Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., driven by Babu, both the riders died in the accident. Wife and two children, aged 12 and 10 years respectively, of the deceased Babu, rider of the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, filed M.C.O.P.No. 48 of 2009, against, (1) the Owner of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, (2) United India Insurance Company, Mettupalayam, insurer of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, (3) R. Thirumalaisamy, owner of the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, (4) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Coimbatore, insurer of the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, (5) Ameer @ Basha and (6) Fathima, legal representatives of the deceased Gnanasekar, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,500/-. Both the Insurance Companies have opposed the claim petition. 2. Before the Claims Tribunal, the wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report, Ex.P3 – Post-Mortem Certificate, Ex.P4 – Death Certificate, Ex.P5 – Legal Heir Certificate, Ex.P6 – 2nd respondent’s Birth Certificate, Ex.P7 – Learner’s Licence of Gnanasekar, dated 09.07.1997, Ex.P8 – Insurance Policy in respect of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, Ex.P9 – Insurance Policy in respect of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617 and Ex.P10 – Ration Card. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, one witness has been examined as RW.1 and he has marked an authorization letter as Ex.R1. 3. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal has found that both the motorcyclists, were negligent, in causing the accident, in equal proportion. Though the insurer of TVS Victor Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, has disputed that the deceased rider, Gnanasekar, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and hence, sought for exoneration, from its liability to pay compensation, the Claims Tribunal upon perusal of Ex.P7, dated 09.07.1997, held that the rider of Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, Gnanasekar, had Learner’s Licence, at the time of accident. 4. 4. On the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased Babu, as Rs.2,700/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, adopted ‘18’ multiplier and computed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.3,88,800/-. In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has added Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,200/- towards transportation. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has arrived at a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 5. As both the vehicles were involved in the accident, with negligence fixed in equal proportion against the riders, the Claims tribunal directed the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mettupalayam and United India Insurance Company Ltd., Coimbatore, appellants herein, to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and apportioned the same, at Rs.2,00,000/- each, to be deposited by the appellants. 6. United India Insurance Company Ltd., is the insurer of both the vehicles. But the vehicles have been insured in different branches. Being aggrieved by the liability to pay compensation at Rs.4,00,000/-, the to Insurance Companies, have filed this present appeal, raising two grounds, (i) When the Claims tribunal has found that Babu, rider of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, was responsible for the accident, no compensation can be awarded against the insurer of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124. (ii) At the time of accident, the rider of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and hence, liability cannot be fastened against the insurer. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. In the claim petition, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Coimbatore, 2nd respondent therein, is the insurer of Suzuki Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mettupalayam, was the 4th respondent, in the claim petition and insurer of TVS Victor Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617. A joint appeal has been filed by the insurers. Both the riders have been found negligent, for causing the accident, in the ratio 50:50. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Mettupalayam, was the 4th respondent, in the claim petition and insurer of TVS Victor Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617. A joint appeal has been filed by the insurers. Both the riders have been found negligent, for causing the accident, in the ratio 50:50. Since 50% of negligence alone has been fixed on the deceased, Babu, the Tribunal has held that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- each, from both the Insurance Companies Liability to pay compensation to the 3rd party is statutory, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, a third party victim can seek for payment of compensation, if the driver of the offending vehicle, is wholly negligent for the accident. 8. In the accident, arising out of collision of two vehicles, the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, can seek for compensation, against their own insurer, provided, if there is a personal accident cover or a package policy and in such circumstances, the owner and the insurer of the other vehicle need not be impleaded as parties in the claim petition. If the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, was negligent, in causing the accident, then the legal representatives of the deceased, can seek for compensation, against the driver, owner of the vehicle and its insurer, as the case may be. If two vehicles are involved in the accident, depending upon the apportionment of negligence, the claim Tribunal, would direct compensation to be paid by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, in case of a third party claim, depending upon the extent of negligence, fixed on the drivers. 9. In the case on hand, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased Babu, was also a tortfeasor, contributing to the extent of 50% in the accident. Quantum of compensation has been arrived at Rs.4,00,000/-. As 50% negligence, has been fixed on him, his legal representatives are entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- from the insurer of the other vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, but not entitled to get any compensation from the insurer of the vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, driven by him. 10. As 50% negligence, has been fixed on him, his legal representatives are entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- from the insurer of the other vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, but not entitled to get any compensation from the insurer of the vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, driven by him. 10. On the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company for exoneration from payment of compensation, it could be seen from the award, the claimants have produced only a learner’s licence of the year 1997. The accident has occurred on 21.04.2008, i.e., after 11 years. The Insurance Company, against whom, compensation is sought for, has not adduced any evidence from the Regional Transport Office, to prove that the rider of the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, Gnanasekar, who also died in the accident, did not possess any valid and effective driving licence, at the time of accident. When the Company has taken a defence that there was a violation of the policy condition, then it is for them to prove the same. 11. In the case on hand, the Company has not proved the same. Learner’s Licence of the year 1997, marked by the claimants, cannot be put against them. On their part, it is suffice to plead negligence and to claim compensation. They are not obliged to prove that the rider of the offending vehicle, did possess a valid and effective driving licence. As the company has not discharged its burden, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding, fastening liability to pay compensation. Further, if the learner’s licence has been obtained in the year 1997, it could be presumed that the rider would have taken a regular licence, in the interregnum period of 11 years, between 09.07.1997, the date of issuance of Learner’s Licence and 21.04.2008, the date on which, the accident occurred. 12. However, while considering the quantum of compensation, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not properly arrived at the same. It is the case of the respondents/Claimants that as a retail seller, the deceased earned Rs.125/- per day. At the time of accident, he was aged 30 years. Having regard to the avocation and the surviving legal representatives, it could be presumed that the deceased would have engaged in selling sweets and earned a considerable income. It is the case of the respondents/Claimants that as a retail seller, the deceased earned Rs.125/- per day. At the time of accident, he was aged 30 years. Having regard to the avocation and the surviving legal representatives, it could be presumed that the deceased would have engaged in selling sweets and earned a considerable income. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is determined at Rs.3,750/- and after applying ‘17’ multiplier, to the age of the deceased, and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, loss of contribution to the family works out of Rs.5,10,000/-(Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 17 x 2/3). 13. Considering the age of the minor children, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.30,000/- under the head, loss of love and affection. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent/claimant was aged about 28 years. Considering the loss of happiness and the difficulties in raising the minor children, compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the heard, loss of consortium, in the opinion of this Court, is less and therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Compensation of Rs.1,250/- towards transportation is very less and therefore, considering the date of accident, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- under the said head. There is no award for Funeral Expenses and damages to clothes. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.25,000/-towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothes. The total compensation works out to Rs.6,26,000/-. 14. In view of the revision of assessment, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to Rs.3,13,000/-, being 50% of the negligence, apportioned against the deceased. The 4th respondent and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mettupalayam, 2nd appellant-Insurance Company, owner and insurer of the TVS Victor Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 40 A 1617, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The liability fastened on the 1st appellant-Insurance Company, at Rs.2,00,000/-with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, is set aside. 15. Record of proceedings shows that pursuant to the order of this Court, the entire award amount has been deposited. As the liability of the 1st appellant-Insurance Company is now fixed at Rs.3,13,000/-, the said Company is directed to deposit the remaining amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs. 15. Record of proceedings shows that pursuant to the order of this Court, the entire award amount has been deposited. As the liability of the 1st appellant-Insurance Company is now fixed at Rs.3,13,000/-, the said Company is directed to deposit the remaining amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs. As the insurer of the Suzuki Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 4124, is exonerated from the payment of compensation, the amount deposited by the said Company with proportionate accrued interest, is permitted to be withdrawn, by making necessary applications, before the Tribunal. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of, as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.