JUDGMENT R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. The Insurance Company which suffered an award for payment of a sum of Rs. 42,25,376/- as compensation for the death of one Niraimathi in a road accident that occurred on 16.12.2013 is on appeal in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 and the claimants have come forward with an appeal in CMA.No.2066 of 2018 seeking enhancement. The case of the claimants who are the husband and children of the said deceased Niraimathi is as follows:- 2. While the deceased along with her husband and children were returning to Tiruvannamalai after having attended a ceremony at Arni in their car driven by the 1st claimant/ husband of the deceased, the driver lost control, resulting in the car hitting a Tamarind tree on the left side of the road. As a result of the impact the deceased who was sitting in front left seat of the car suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The driver of the car and the other claimants suffered minor injuries. Claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car viz., 1st claimant, the claimants sought for compensation from the insurer of the car. The claimants would further contend that the deceased was working as Deputy Tahsildar and was earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition contending that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable inasmuch as the owner of the car/ 1st claimant who is a tort-feasor cannot seek compensation from his own insurer. It was the further case of the Insurance Company that in the absence of any plea regarding negligence on the part of the insured/ driver of the car/ 1st claimant, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. An additional counter was filed by the Insurance Company contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car/ 1st claimant. Reliance was also placed on the FIR and charge sheet where the 1st claimant was shown as accused to contend that he is not entitled to compensation. The Insurance Company also denied the age, employment details and the income of the deceased. 4. Reliance was also placed on the FIR and charge sheet where the 1st claimant was shown as accused to contend that he is not entitled to compensation. The Insurance Company also denied the age, employment details and the income of the deceased. 4. The Tribunal which heard the Original Petition concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PW2 the eye witness to the occurrence and the evidence of PW1. The fact that an FIR was registered against the 1st claimant, driver of the car was also taken into account by the Tribunal. The Tribunal however held that the 1st claimant/ owner-cum-driver of the car is not entitled for any compensation inasmuch as he is the tort-feasor. 5. On the quantum, the Tribunal found that the deceased was employed as Deputy Tahsildar with the Government of Tamil Nadu and was earning about Rs. 35,262/- per month as evidenced by Ex.P6, pay certificate and Ex.P11, pay drawn particulars of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 43 years and employed with the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Tribunal added 30% towards future prospects and arrived at the monthly income for the purpose of deciding the loss of dependency at Rs. 45,763/-. The Tribunal deducted 20% towards Income Tax and 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the monthly loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 24,407/-, adopting the multiplier of 14' the Tribunal arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 41,00,376/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to the two children and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total award worked out to Rs. 42,25,376/-. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company has come up on appeal. 6. We have heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, Insurance Company in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 and for the respondent in CMA.No.2066 of 2018 and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 and for the appellants in CMA.No.2066 of 2018. 7. 42,25,376/-. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company has come up on appeal. 6. We have heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, Insurance Company in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 and for the respondent in CMA.No.2066 of 2018 and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 and for the appellants in CMA.No.2066 of 2018. 7. Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal was in error in concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st claimant/ 1st respondent. He would draw our attention to the pleading in the Original Petition, wherein, it is specifically averred that the car was driven by the 1st petitioner with due care and caution by observing the rules of traffic. Mr.J.Chandran would submit that in the absence of allegation regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the car an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act will not be maintainable. Mr.J.Chandran would also fault the Tribunal for awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the children towards loss of love and affection. It is the further contention of the counsel for the appellant that in the absence of the tort-feasor/ insured as party respondent in the claim petition, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an award. 8. Per contra Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that once the insured is made a party to the claim petition either as claimant or as respondent, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make an award against the Insurance Company. He would also submit that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the 1st respondent, the driver of the car. On the absence of plea regarding negligence, Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants would contend that the Insurance Company in the additional counter affidavit before the Trial Court had specifically claimed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. He would also invite our attention to the evidence of the Officer of the Insurance Company who was examined as RW1, wherein, even in chief examination it has been categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 9. He would also invite our attention to the evidence of the Officer of the Insurance Company who was examined as RW1, wherein, even in chief examination it has been categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 9. Relying upon the above stand of the Insurance Company, Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja would contend that the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent/ 1st claimant has been admitted by the Insurance Company itself and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot seek to avoid the liability to pay the compensation by pointing out certain defect in the pleadings in the Original Petition. 10. Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja would further submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The Tribunal has gone by the settled principles of law and adopted a right multiplier and proper deduction towards Income Tax as well as personal expenses. Therefore, according to him, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. He would further point out that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and transportation. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. From the above contentions of the learned counsel on either side, the following points emerge for determination in these appeals. 1.Whether the absence of the insured as party respondent to the claim petition would affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant just and reasonable compensation? 2.Whether the absence of a plea regarding negligence on the part of the insured would result in dismissal of the claim petition? 3.Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Point No.1:- 12. Though, it is an admitted case of the claimants that the vehicle in question was driven by the 1st claimant at the time of the accident, being the insured he was not shown as party respondent. He was shown as 1st claimant as the husband of the deceased. Mr.J.Chandran would contend that in the absence of insured being made a party respondent in the Original Petition, the Tribunal cannot award compensation inasmuch as the very liability of the Insurance Company is only to indemnify the insured. 13. He was shown as 1st claimant as the husband of the deceased. Mr.J.Chandran would contend that in the absence of insured being made a party respondent in the Original Petition, the Tribunal cannot award compensation inasmuch as the very liability of the Insurance Company is only to indemnify the insured. 13. Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would invite our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Er.K.Jothilingam and Others reported in, (2009) 2 TNMAC 53 (DB), wherein, the Division Bench has held that the non-impleading of the tort-feasor will not debar the Tribunal from granting compensation to the other dependents of the deceased. That was also a case where the deceased died in the accident where the car was driven by her husband. 14. The Division Bench had considered the contentions of the Insurance Company that in the absence of the tort-feasor being made a party respondent to the claim petition the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to pass the award against the Insurance Company. Upon consideration of the said contention of the Insurance Company, the Division Bench has held as follows:- 22. The other point that was raised by the insurance company is whether it was not against public policy for the tort feasor to make the claim and whether when it was the husband of the deceased who by his rash and negligent driving had caused the accident, he can claim compensation. We agree that the husband of the deceased being the tort feasor cannot reward himself. But the other claimants are undoubtedly entitled to be compensated. The claim for compensation was made not only by the husband of the deceased, but also by the child as well as parents of the deceased. Perhaps, the claim ought to have been made by the minor child represented by her grand parents showing her father as the respondent 1. But as it happened, the husband of the deceased was the first claimant. Now in the appeal stage, a petition has been filed for transposing the first claimant as respondent 3 which we have ordered today. We did so because as far as the minor daughter and parents of the deceased, they are entitled to make a claim. But as it happened, the husband of the deceased was the first claimant. Now in the appeal stage, a petition has been filed for transposing the first claimant as respondent 3 which we have ordered today. We did so because as far as the minor daughter and parents of the deceased, they are entitled to make a claim. The death occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the husband and the child, a third party who lost her mother on account of the rash and negligent driving of her father cannot be denied her compensation. The objection had been rectified at the appeal stage by the petition seeking transposition of the first claimant as the first respondent. 15. No doubt there is no attempt made to transpose the tort-feasor as was done in the appeal before the Division Bench. We are however of the considered opinion that the same would not affect the right of the other claimants viz., the minor children of the deceased from seeking compensation. After all, the object of the enactment is to award just and reasonable compensation and a right to claim just compensation cannot be defeated by technicalities. It will be pertinent to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji reported in, (1987) 100 LW 676, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:- 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 16. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the fact that the 1st claimant being the tort-feasor had also joined the other claimants in making the claim would not prevent the Tribunal from awarding just compensation for the children of the deceased. Hence, Point No.1 is answered against the appellant Insurance Company. Point No.2:- 17. Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would make a valiant effort to convince us on the question of maintainability of the instant claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would draw our attention to the pleading in the Original Petition, where the claimants have stated that the accident occurred despite the vehicle being driven in a very careful manner by the 1st claimant. He would draw our attention to the pleading in the Original Petition, where the claimants have stated that the accident occurred despite the vehicle being driven in a very careful manner by the 1st claimant. We do not think that the Insurance Company can be allowed to raise such a plea for the following reasons: 1. The Insurance Company had filed an additional counter in the Original Petition, wherein, it is specifically pleaded as follows:- "This respondent states that at the time of the accident the 1st petitioner Kumar was owner-cum-driver at the time of the accident while he drove the car bearing registration No.TN-22-CB-7254 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side tree and he and Others are got injuries and his wife viz., Niraimathi, died on the spot." [sic.] 2. The Insurance Company did not stop then. RW1 who was examined on the side of the Insurance Company has in his proof affidavit, stated as follows:- XXX XXX XXX 18. Even in cross examination, he had claimed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st claimant/ 1st respondent. In the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the Insurance Company, we do not think that the Insurance Company can now turn around to contend that the claim petition filed under Section 166 is not maintainable and the same should have been filed under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 19. Mr.J.Chandran, would however invite our attention to the following judgments:- N.V.Govindan Nambiar Vs. Janaki and Others reported in, (2003) ACJ 721 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal and Others reported in, (2007) 2 TNMAC 9 (SC) A.Sridhar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in, (2011) 2 TNMAC 427 (SC) New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. P.Arunachalam and Others reported in, (2016) 2 TNMAC 85 (DB) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.Hemavathy and Others reported in, (2017) 2 TNMAC 115 DB Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another reported in, (2018) 1 TNMAC 148 (SC) Nishan Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd., and Others, (2018) 1 TNMAC 745 (SC) 20. P.Arunachalam and Others reported in, (2016) 2 TNMAC 85 (DB) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.Hemavathy and Others reported in, (2017) 2 TNMAC 115 DB Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another reported in, (2018) 1 TNMAC 148 (SC) Nishan Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd., and Others, (2018) 1 TNMAC 745 (SC) 20. We do not think that any of the above judgments would be of any help to the Insurance Company inasmuch as the Insurance Company had specifically taken a plea that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st claimant/ 1st respondent. We are afraid that entertaining a plea as to the absence of negligence from the Insurance Company at the appellate stage would only cause prejudice to the respondents/ claimants. We therefore find that the 2nd question has to necessarily be answered against the Insurance Company. Point No.3:- 21. On the quantum, there is evidence to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 35,202/- per month in the form of her pay certificate and pay drawn particulars. The authenticity of the said documents has not been questioned by the Insurance Company and we find that those documents have been proved by examining PW3, Assistant working in the office of the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai viz., the Issuing Authority. The Tribunal has added 30% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses apart from deducting 20% towards Income Tax. We do not find any error in the said calculation adopted by the Tribunal in order to arrive at the loss of dependency. 22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the two children at Rs. 50,000/- each and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. Though, it could be said that the award of Rs. 50,000/- each for loss of love and affection is slightly on the higher side, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transportation and loss of estate. We therefore conclude that the award as a whole is just and reasonable. 23. Though, Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja would fault the Tribunal for deducting 20% towards Income Tax, we do not think that the said deduction is on the higher side considering the salary drawn by the deceased. We therefore conclude that the award as a whole is just and reasonable. 23. Though, Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja would fault the Tribunal for deducting 20% towards Income Tax, we do not think that the said deduction is on the higher side considering the salary drawn by the deceased. We therefore find no scope of interference in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 24. In fine, both the appeals in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 and CMA.No.2066 of 2018 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in these appeals. 25. It is seen that the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire award amount within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of the order by our order dated 27.08.2018. The said order was made ready on 30.08.2018. Mr.J.Chandran would submit that the Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount as per the directions stated supra. The Tribunal has held that the 1st claimant being the tort-feasor is not entitled to compensation and we have confirmed the said finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants 2 and 3 viz., respondents 2 and 3 in CMA.No.1874 of 2018 would alone be entitled to the compensation. The Tribunal has apportioned the compensation between the two children equally. We see no ground to interfere with the said apportionment also. The claimants 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their shares of the compensation which has been deposited by the Insurance Company as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.