Judgment :- V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Challenging the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.19,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the file of the MACT (III ADJ), Coimbatore in M.C.O.P.No.836 of 2011 vide judgment dated 07.03.2013, the Insurance Company has come up with this Appeal. 2. Heard Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Partheeban, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4/claimants. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants. It is their case before the Tribunal that on 08.11.2010, about 8.50 a.m., when the deceased S.Sunil Shenoy was driving his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 38 AW 7378 from South to North on Mettupalayam Road and when he was attempting to climb the North Coimbatore bridge by following traffic rules and regulations, the 5th respondent herein, by name, Sirajudeen, who was driving the Lorry bearing Registration No.TDC 1163, belonging to the 6th respondent herein, i.e. TNEB, Coimbatore, in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle, which the deceased was driving. As the impact was heavy, the deceased sustained injuries in his head, chest and all the parts of the body and subsequently died while on the way to Hospital. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and as he drove the same in the course of employment under TNEB, Coimbatore, contending that the driver of the Lorry and its owner are liable to compensate for the death of the deceased, the claimants filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Controverting the averments of the claimants, the 6th respondent herein, i.e. the TNEB filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that the 5th respondent herein/driver of the Lorry had driven the Lorry carefully following the traffic rules and it is the deceased Sunil Shenoy who drove the motor cycle in a negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry. According to them, when the Lorry driver has not contributed to the accident, TNEB is not liable to compensate the claimants. 5. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1-wife of the claimant and P.W.2, an eye-witness to the accident were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents/owner of the Lorry, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1-wife of the claimant and P.W.2, an eye-witness to the accident were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents/owner of the Lorry, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry and awarded a sum of Rs.19,02,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at 7.5% per annum, under the following heads:S. No. Compensation awarded under the Head Amount of compensation : S. No. Compensation awarded under the Head Amount of compensation 1 Loss of earning Rs.18,00,000.00 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000.00 3 Mental agony Rs. 20,000.00 4 Loss of Consortium to the 1 st claimant Rs. 25,000.00 5 Transportation expenses Rs. 1,000.00 6 Damage to Clothing Rs. 1,000.00 7 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs.19,02,000.00 Challenging the award of the Tribunal, both on quantum and negligence, the Insurance Company has come up with the present Appeal. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant raised serious contentions both on the question of quantum and negligence, he mainly assailed that the quantum awarded by this Court is excessive and that the income of the deceased arrived by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 8. Resisting the said submission, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4/claimants would submit that the Tribunal, on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, considered every factor involved both on quantum and negligence and there is no warranting circumstances to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 9. From the pleadings, it is seen that the accident in question occurred on 08.11.2010, about 8.50 am., when the deceased was driving his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 38 AW 7378 from South to North on Mettupalayam Road, and when he was attempting to climb the North Coimbatore bridge, a Lorry bearing Registration No. TDC 1163 came from behind and dashed against the motor cycle and due to the sudden impact, the victim suffered grievous injuries and died while on the way to Hospital. Though the claimants averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, the 6th respondent/TNEB, Coimbatore, under whom the driver of the Lorry was working, in their counter before the Tribunal, contended that the accident was only due to the negligence of the deceased. 10. But, on a perusal of the documents, it is seen that the 6th respondent/TNEB, Coimbatore has not marked any document on their side to disprove that the accident is only due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry. Moreover, the Lorry driver, in his evidence has admitted to the accident. Ex.P3 – Rough Sketch would show that the front portion of the Lorry had caused the accident. Also, Exs.P4 and P5, dated 10.11.2010 and 18.11.2010, respectively, which pertain to the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, would clearly show that the accident did not occur due to any machinery fault in the vehicles. 11. For better appreciation of the case, as to the question of 'negligence', relevant portion of the Tribunal's award is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 12. From the above, it is seen that the Tribunal has come to a right conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and accordingly fastened the liability of the accident on the driver of the Lorry. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal as regards the question of negligence and accordingly, it is confirmed. 13. Coming to the question of quantum, which aspect is strongly disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is definitely on the higher side, particularly, the Tribunal has not applied its mind while determining the income of the deceased, it is seen from the material records that the deceased, at the time of accident had been earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, as is evident from Ex.P7 – Bank Pass Book. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 42 years at the time of accident as could be seen from Ex.P10 - Driving Licence. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 42 years at the time of accident as could be seen from Ex.P10 - Driving Licence. Fixing the age of the deceased as 42 years and his income as Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15' as per II Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act and arrived at the compensation towards 'loss of income' as Rs.18,00,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 15 x 2/3), after making necessary deduction towards his personal expenses, which, in our view is correct and the compensation under this head does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is confirmed. 14. As regards the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.20,000/- awarded towards mental agony, we are of the view that certainly the minor children of the deceased would be longing for the love, care and comfort of their father and his demise would have naturally resulted in mental agony to all the members of his family. Therefore, we find that the compensation awarded under the heads 'loss of love and affection' and 'mental agony' are reasonable and they are confirmed. Since the wife of the deceased has lost her husband at an young age, we find that a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards 'loss of consortium' is just and reasonable and it is accordingly confirmed. 15. Further, with regard to compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, viz. Rs.1,000/- towards transportation expenses; Rs.1000/- towards 'damage to clothing' and Rs.5,000/- towards 'funeral expenses', we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and they are accordingly confirmed. 16. In all, we find no strong reason whatsoever to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and the same is upheld in all respects. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.