Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2011 made in M.C.O.P. No. 159 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, in and by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 10 lakhs. 2. The Vehicle involved in the accident concerned in this case belongs to the Commercial Tax Department. The claimants pleaded before the Tribunal that on 08.10.1997, in Salem-Dharmapuri Road, one Balan was driving his moped bearing Registration No: TN 29 A 4984 from Lakkiampatty towards Dharmapuri. At that time, about 4.15 p.m., the Trax Jeep bearing Registration No: TN-29-G-0079, belonging to the appellant herein, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came behind and dashed against the moped. In the impact, the moped and its rider Balan fell down, proceeded 50 feet further and then only stopped. Balan was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, for treatment for the multiple injuries sustained in the accident. Despite treatment, he died soon after admission. It was the claim of the claimants that the deceased Balan was aged only 36 years at the time of accident. According to them he was doing Real Estate Business, house building contractor, financier, agriculturist and milk vendor and he totally earned a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month and determined his contribution to the family at Rs.7,000/-. According to the cliamants, the deceased is the only breadwinner of his family. The 6th respondent being the driver of the jeep and the appellant being the owner of the jeep are liable to pay compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Refuting the said claim, the respondent has pleaded before the Tribunal that the jeep driver was driving the jeep slowly, carefully, keepting to the left extreme end of the road in Salem-Dharmapuri Road. At that time, near Bharathipuram, the deceased who was riding the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner suddenly cross the NH road from west to east and he himself came and contacted the jeep and fell down. According to the appellant, the accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the moped by its rider and not due to any fault on the part of the jeep driver. According to the appellant, the accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the moped by its rider and not due to any fault on the part of the jeep driver. The deceased had no driving licence and does not know driving and hence, it is he who caused the accident and therefore, the appellant is not at all liable to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal, while considering the negligent aspect as well as the quantum of compensation, decided the case in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation. Challenging the said award, the Commercial Taxes Department, has preferred the present appeal. 5. The main plea of the appellant is that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the victim was driving the moped without a driving licence and only due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident had occurred. It is also contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence as to the occupation of the deceased namely the business of Real Estate, Cycle shop, Building contract, agriculture and milk vending, the Tribunal is completely wrong in computing the amount of compensation and therefore, the award has to be interfered with by this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs. A.1 to A.5, has come to the conclusion on the negligence aspect and that the quantum of compensation has been awarded taking into account exhibits P.11 to P.15 and such a determination arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials made available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 08.10.1997 in Salem Dharmapuri road, when the deceased was driving his moped from Lakkiampatty towards Dharmapuri. It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was slowly driving his moped and that the trax jeep bearing Registration No. TN-29-G-0079 belonging to the Commercial Taxes Department, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the moped driven by the deceased from behind, due to which deceased fell down, was dragged for further 50 feet and thus, suffered multiple injuries all over the body. Though he was taken to the Hospital immediately, he died soon after admission. According to the appellant, the negligent driving of the moped by the deceased was the cause of the accident and its driver is in no way responsible for the accident. 9. The Tribunal, at the first place, took the negligence aspect and came to the conclusion that the rash and negligent act of the driver of the jeep was the cause of the accident, by taking into account the various material information and both oral and documentary evidences. The 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and through her, the F.I.R. filed in C.C. No. 319 of 1997 was marked as Ex.A.1. The final report is marked as Ex.A.3. The judgment copy in C.C. No. 319 of 1997 is marked as Ex.A.5. According to Ex.A.1 F.I.R. and Ex. A.3 Final Report, the 6th respondent herein, the driver of the jeep, is the accused. Further, a perual of Ex.A.5, a copy of the judgment dated 28.10.1997 rendered in PRC No: 319 of 1997, reveals that the 6th respondent herein had admitted his guilt and paid the fine amount. Therefore, though P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident, the documentary evidence produced clinchingly proves that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 6th respondent herein that the accident had occurred. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant Commercial Taxes Department is vicariously liable for the fault committed by its driver, the 6th respondent herein, and ordered for payment of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. Though it was pleaded by the appellant before the Tribunal that only due to the negligent driving of the moped by the deceased that the accident had occurred, the evidence of P.W.2 – Govindaraj, who is also the defacto complainant in the criminal case, is to the effect that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. This evidence, coupled with the fact that the driver of the jeep had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before Criminal Court compels us to conclude that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle jeep by its driver. This evidence, coupled with the fact that the driver of the jeep had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before Criminal Court compels us to conclude that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle jeep by its driver. Therefore, we accept the Tribunal's conclusion and hold that the negligence on the part of the jeep driver of the appellant department is the cause of the accident. 10. As to the quantum of compensation, the claim petition is filed by the claimants viz. Wife, two daughters, son and mother of the deceased Balan. Since their claim for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation has been accepted by the Tribunal, the claimants have not preferred any cross objection. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and was contributing Rs. 7,000/- per month to the family. According to them, he had real estate business, milk vending, cycle shop, building contractor, agriculturists and financier. In support of their claim, they have filed Ex.A.11 – Partnership Deed of the finance business; Ex.A.12 – bill for purchase of Concrete Mixer Machine and also Exs. A.13 to A.15. By perusing all these materials, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and fixed his income at Rs.10,000/- and arrived at the sum of Rs.7,000/- as his monthly contribution to the family. On a careful consideration of the materils filed in support of the claim showing the involvement of the deceased in various business activities such as finance business, building contractor, etc. we have no hesitation to concur with the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 36 years and the appropriate multiplier is 16. Thus calculated, the total loss of income of the claimants would be Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 10,08,000/-. 11. As to the non pecuniary damages, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st claimant as loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- each to the claimants 2 to 5 towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,63,000/- as compensation. 10,08,000/-. 11. As to the non pecuniary damages, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st claimant as loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- each to the claimants 2 to 5 towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,63,000/- as compensation. However, since the claimants have preferred their claim only for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/-. 12. Thus, from looking at any angle, we find no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased Balan. This, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. At this juncture, the counsel for the appellant had produced before us a copy of Roc. No. 1396/2007/A1 dated 21.08.2014 wherein it is stated that the total sum of Rs. 22,23,666/- was paid by way of three cheques bearing Nos. 312279, 312280 and 312281 for sums of Rs.9,00,000/-; Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.4,23,666/- respectively. This communication is taken on file. In view of the same, the claimants are hereby permitted to take appropriate steps to withdraw the amount.