JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.400 and 532 of 2009 dated 13.07.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Vellore, in an by which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.55,000/- in MCOP No.400/2009 and Rs.24,35,600/- in MCOP No.532/2009 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the claimants are as follows: i) The appellant in these two appeals was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The respondents / claimants in CMA No.1295 of 2013 are wife, minor son, and parents of the deceased C.Gopi respectively. The 1st respondent / petitioner in CMA No.1294 of 20123, a victim, was a pillion rider. The deceased, while crossing Gangavaram Mangalam Govinda Chettypalli at Palamaner-Bangalore NH-4 Road, in his two wheeler bearing Regn. No.TN-23-J-8338 along with the said pillion rider minor Kiran, met with an accident on 30.05.2009 at about 07.05 pm on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.ATA-7999, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries in his head, right and left shoulder, his hand and also all over his body. The victim Minor Kiran, petitioner in MCOP 400 of 2009 also sustained injuries. The deceased was a Military man and earning a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. The victim / claimant, by filing claim petition before the Tribunal, sought compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, whereas compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- was sought by the respondents / claimants in CMA 1295/2013 . 3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined and the following exhibits were marked: Exhibits Description of Documents Ex.P1 Certified Xerox Copy of FIR Ex.P2 Certified copy of Postmortem Certificate Ex.P3 Certified copy of FIR Ex.P4 Certified Xerox copy of MV Report issued by MV Inspector, Palamaner Ex.P5 Certified Xerox copy of the charge sheet of Judicial Magistrate of Palamaner Court in Crime No.89/2009 Ex.P6 Certified Xerox copy of Driving Licence of Ahamed Basha.N. Ex.P7 17.09.2009 – Legal heirship certificate issued to Late Gopi issued by Tahsildar, Katpadi. Ex.P8 Xerox copy of deceased C.Babu's RC book front page. Ex.P8 Xerox copy of deceased C.Babu's RC book front page. Ex.P9 Xerox copy of insurance policy front page Ex.P10 Certified xerox copy of wound certificate, issued by male child Kiran Ex.P11 CMC Hospital Medical Bills Ex.P12 Discharge summary of Kiran Ex.P13 C.T.Scan report of male child Kiran Ex.P14 Disability Certificate issued to Mr.Kiran. Ex.P15 X-Ray Report Ex.P16 Last Pay certificate of late Gopi Ex.P17 Letter of Senior Record Officer, Chennai Ex.P18 Register Sheet Roll On behalf of the appellant / respondents, one witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.24,35,600/- in MCOP No.532/2009 and Rs.55,000/- in MCOP No.400/2009. The said compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The said awards are being challenged by the appellant / Insurance Company in these appeals on the following grounds: i) that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry without properly appreciating the evidence and that the deceased was equally guilty of contributory negligence; ii) that the Tribunal has erred in awarding disproportionate compensation both in the fatal accident claim as well as in the injury claim and the Tribunal has not deducted the income tax and the multiplier adopted is also on the higher side; iii) that the Tribunal failed to note that there was no loss to the studies of the victim minor Kiran as represented by his mother. 5. Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that negligence fixed by the Tribunal is not supported by any oral and documentary evidence and there is also no material adduced in respect of fixation of liability and awarding of disproportionate compensation for fatal as well as injury claim. He would further submit that the Tribunal has failed to note that as per Ex.P13, there was no brain injuries and as such the alleged disability certificate is an exaggerated one so as to claim higher compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants / respondents has vehemently contended that the awards passed by the Tribunal are just and proper on scrutiny of various elements and based on oral and documentary evidence. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants / respondents has vehemently contended that the awards passed by the Tribunal are just and proper on scrutiny of various elements and based on oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, no infirmity could be attributed to the said awards so as to warrant interference by this Court and thus, the awards of the Tribunal can be confirmed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 8. A circumspection of the fact would reveal that on 30.05.2009 at about 07.05 pm, when the deceased along with one pillion rider was driving his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.TN-23-J-8338 at Palamaner-Bangalore NH-4 Road, the lorry, bearing Reg.No.ATA-7999, which is insured with the appellant insurance company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased and the pillion rider, resulting in the deceased sustenance of fatal injuries and death subsequently, which accident also caused injury to the victim minor Kiran. As against the claim of a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.24,35,600/-as compensation in respect of MCOP No.532 of 2009 and Rs.55,000/-against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- in MCOP No.400 of 2009. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / Insurance Company is before this Court for determination of their liability by this Court. 9. To the above claim, appellant / respondent has made a statement to the effect that the deceased Gopi, who rode the alleged two wheeler was solely responsible for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability with greater percentage on the deceased also. 10. The Tribunal, on looking into the claim and rival submissions, has framed the following two questions for consideration: i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, who drove the lorry bearing Reg.No.ATA-7999 or due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased Gopi? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? and If so, to what extent? iii) By whom to be paid? 11. ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? and If so, to what extent? iii) By whom to be paid? 11. The Tribunal has firstly examined the negligence aspect, by taking into account the deposition in unison of P.W.1, Prasanalakshmi, wife of the deceased and also P.W.2, Usharani, mother of the victim minor Kiran, who deposed that on 30.05.2009 at about 7.05 p.m., on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Reg.No.ATA-7999, the accident occurred by hitting the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-23-J-8338 of the deceased and caused death of the deceased and also injury to the victim, who at that time was a pillion rider on the two wheeler. P.W.1 also deposed that the deceased was taken to the Military Hospital, Bangalore, since he was a Military man as Naik, Bangalore and was also earning Rs.35,000/-per month. P.W.3, the pillion rider by name Surender, a direct eye witness to the occurrence made deposition to the effect that the driver of the lorry dashed the two wheeler going ahead of their two wheeler, driven by the deceased and caused the accident. Since there is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the respondents, the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was alone responsible for the said accident, by, in addition relying upon Ex.P1, copy of FIR, Ex.P4, M.V.Inspection Report and Ex.P5, xerox copy of charge sheet. 12. The decision arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with, which is as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan, reported in 2013 (2) CTC 680, that the scheme of Section 163-A is a departure from the general principle of law of tort that the liability of the owner of the vehicle to compensate the victim or his heirs in a motor accident arises only on the proof of negligence on the part of the driver and Section 163-A had done away with the requirement of the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle where the victim of an accident of his defendants elect to apply for compensation under Section 163-A. While claiming compensation arising out of an accident under Section 166, it is necessary for a claimant to prove negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. The burden is on the claimant to establish the negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle and on proof thereof, the claimant is entitled to compensation. 13. If the said ratio is applied to the facts of the present case, it is no doubt true that the Tribunal has, on analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, reached a right conclusion of fixing the responsibility for the said accident on the driver of the lorry, by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the liability was fixed on the owner of the lorry for payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.55,000/- in MCOP No.400/2009 and Rs.24,35,600/- in MCOP No.532/2009 respectively. Since the lorry has been insured with the appellant insurance company, they are liable to pay the entire compensation. The said decision of the Tribunal is prefectly valid in law and needs no interference by this Court. 14. The next question, which arose for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded to the claimants are in accordance with law or not. In order to deal with the said question, the Tribunal has once again perused the evidence of P.W.1, who has, besides producing the salary certificate of her husband / deceased Gopi, stated that her husband was employed as Naik and earned a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the same has been affirmed by one Ezilan / P.W.5, an armed personnel. Thus, by perusing Ex.P16, last pay certificate, the salary of the deceased for the month of November, 2009 was noted as Rs.16,558/- pm, rounded off to Rs.16,660/- and after deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses, Rs.11,100/- pm was fixed as the deceased's loss of income to the family. The Tribunal has also taken note of the age of the deceased as 28 years from Ex.P2, Postmortem Certificate at the time of accident and applied the multiplier of 18 as per the table arrived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , thereby fixing the total loss of income to the family due to the demise of the deceased as Rs.23,97,600/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as under: “20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as under: “20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A. In addition to the above, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.20,000/- in toto for love and affection, Rs.3,000/- in respect of transportation of dead body of the deceased from hospital to the residence of the petitioners and finally Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, were added to come to the total compensation of Rs.24,35,600/-. The entitlement of compensation to each of the petitioners was also apportioned by the Tribunal. 15. As regards compensation for the injured victim minor Kiran, the Tribunal has analyzed the evidence of P.W.4, Dr.Shanmugamsundar, who has categorically deposed that the said minor Kiran sustained injuries on his right shoulder, whose deposition was supported with Disability Certificate, Ex.P14, X-Ray report, Ex.P15, discharge summary, Ex.P12, CT Scan report, Ex.P13. 15. As regards compensation for the injured victim minor Kiran, the Tribunal has analyzed the evidence of P.W.4, Dr.Shanmugamsundar, who has categorically deposed that the said minor Kiran sustained injuries on his right shoulder, whose deposition was supported with Disability Certificate, Ex.P14, X-Ray report, Ex.P15, discharge summary, Ex.P12, CT Scan report, Ex.P13. Since there is no concrete evidence to hold the percentage of disability as noted in Ex.P14 and the alleged sustainment of injuries was not to an extent of 30% of permanent disability, the Tribunal fixed only 25% towards permanent disability, thereby, entitling the victim to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards 25% permanent disability, Rs,25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses and finally, Rs.1,000/- was awarded for transportation charges to give total compensation of Rs.55,000/- to the victim. 16. Almost a century back in Taff Vale Railway Co. vs. Jenkins, 1913 AC 1, the House of Lords laid down the test that award of damages in fatal accident, action is compensation for the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit by the deceased's family. The purpose of award of compensation is to put the defendants of the deceased, who had been bread-winner of the family, in the same position financially as if he had lived his natural span of life. This Court also in C.K.Subramania Iyer and others vs. T.Kunhikuttan Nair and others, 1970 (2) SCR 688 , reiterated the legal philosophy highlighted in Taff Vale Railway, for award of compensation in claim cases and said that there is no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations 17. In entirety, keeping in mind the above factors, the Tribunal has touched upon every corner of the claim and given thoughtful consideration for each and every aspect especially with respect to negligence and liability aspect. The adoption of multiplier and calculation of percentage of disability of the victim are also well within the settled principles of law based on the oral and documentary evidence, placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has determined the compensation in a very reasonable and fair manner, which, in our considered opinion, does not warrant any interference by this Court, as such determination arrived at by the Tribunal is perfectly valid in law. 18. The Tribunal has determined the compensation in a very reasonable and fair manner, which, in our considered opinion, does not warrant any interference by this Court, as such determination arrived at by the Tribunal is perfectly valid in law. 18. Therefore, we find no reasons whatsoever to interfere with the awards of the Tribunal and the same are upheld. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.