JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 24.06.2016 in M.C.O.P No.1755 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Special Sub-Court-I, Salem.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award and decree dated 24.06.2016 in M.C.O.P No.1755 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Special Sub-Court-I, Salem]. 2. The appellant is the owner of the TATA ACE Tempo bearing Regn.No.TN 30K 7796 who is the first respondent in MCOP No.1755 of 2009. The first respondent filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 28.06.2009. 2. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the TATA Ace Tempo bearing Regn.No.TN 30K 7796 belongs to the appellant and the first respondent has travelled as a gratuitous passenger and therefore the second respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and directed the appellant, as owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. 3. Against the said award dated 24.06.2016 in M.C.O.P No.1755 of 2009, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant is responsible for the accident while the driver of the mini lorry bearing Regn.No.TN49 W 8650 is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal erred in holding that the owner and insurance company of mini lorry are not necessary parties to the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant officially did not collect the details of driving licence of the driver and stability certificate of mini lorry bearing Regn.No. TN49 W 8650 and fastened the liability on the vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal erroneously accepted the FIR lodged against the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant officially did not collect the details of driving licence of the driver and stability certificate of mini lorry bearing Regn.No. TN49 W 8650 and fastened the liability on the vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal erroneously accepted the FIR lodged against the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal failed to see that the first respondent has stated in the claim petition that he travelled as loadman in the vehicle belonging to the appellant but in the proof affidavit, he has stated that he travelled in the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN49 W 8650 and erroneously held that the first respondent travelled as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle belonging to the appellant bearing Regn.No.TN 30K 7796. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation based on wrong calculation. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the second respondent/insurance company and prayed for setting aside the award directing the appellant to pay the compensation. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the driver of the appellant permitted the first respondent to travel in the vehicle belonging to the appellant as gratuitous passenger. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has concluded that the first respondent is a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle belonging to the appellant vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-30-K-7796. The second respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for gratuitous passenger who travelled in the commercial goods vehicle. The order of the Tribunal exonerating the second respondent/Insurance Company is based on evidence on record and as per the judgment of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. The second respondent/Insurance Company has let in evidence, both the oral and documentary, to prove that the first respondent travelled in the vehicle belonging to the appellant as gratuitous passenger. The appellant has not let in any evidence to substantiate his case that accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-49-W-8650. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the first respondent and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The appellant has not let in any evidence to substantiate his case that accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-49-W-8650. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the first respondent and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the second respondent/Insurance Company and perused all the materials available on record. 7. The first respondent as claimant has claimed compensation against the appellant as owner of the vehicle and the second respondent as insurer of the vehicle. According to the first respondent, he travelled as loadman in the vehicle belonging to the appellant and the said vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-49-W-8650 and caused the accident. For the injuries sustained in the accident, the first respondent claimed compensation. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is only the driver of the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-49-W-8650 who is responsible for the accident and the driver of the appellant is not responsible for the accident. In view of the same, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, only the second respondent/Insurance Company is only liable to pay compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the first respondent travelled as gratuitous passenger in a commercial goods vehicle and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. To prove his case, the first respondent examined himself as PW1 and examined Doctor as PW2. He marked two documents as Exs.P1 & P2. The second respondent/Insurance Company examined five witnesses and marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4. The Tribunal marked third party documents Exs.X1 to X5. The appellant has not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The appellant has not examined the driver of the vehicle who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. He will be the best person to narrate as to how the accident had occurred and that the driver of the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-49-W-8650 alone is responsible for the accident. The appellant has not examined the driver of the vehicle who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. He will be the best person to narrate as to how the accident had occurred and that the driver of the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-49-W-8650 alone is responsible for the accident. In view of such failure on the part of the appellant, the Tribunal, considering Ex.P1-FIR and Exs.X1 to X5, list of witnesses and evidence of PW1 and RW1 to RW5, held that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant is responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligence driving. There is no infirmity in the said conclusion, as appellant has not let in any evidence to the evidence let in by the second respondent. 9. As far as liability is concerned, the second respondent/Insurance Company has examined RW1 to RW5 to prove that the first respondent travelled as gratuitous passenger in the commercial goods vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal has accepted the evidence let in by the second respondent/Insurance Company and exonerated the second respondent from its liability to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by the first respondent who travelled in the commercial goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger. The said finding is not erroneous warranting interference by this Court. 10. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in applying the wrong multiplier is contrary to the materials on record. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for 30% disability as certified by the Doctor who was examined as PW2 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. The Tribunal has not adopted multiplier method for calculating the loss of income. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 13. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount alongwith interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount alongwith interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount alongwith interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.