JUDGMENT : Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.392 of 2012 on 09.08.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Court at Sathyamangalam, Erode. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. It is a case of fatal accident, where the two vehicles Mahindra pick up van and the passenger bus dashed against each other, in which, the driver of the pick up van died. The legal heirs of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner of the passenger bus and its insurer. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,85,800/- payable by the insurer of the bus. 3. The reasons stated by the Tribunal for fixing the liability on the appellant insurer is assailed in this appeal as perverse and non application of mind. 4. On hearing the learned counsels and perusing the records, this Court substantially concur with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, taking note of the facts that the respondents before this Court are the legal heirs of the deceased driver/owner of the pick up van and for the erroneous and imperfect claim petition drafted by their counsel and improper appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal, the victim of the accident should not be taken for ride. Hence, this Court instead of remanding back to the Tribunal for fresh appreciation of evidence take up the job of proper appreciation of law and evidence and passed the following judgment: Facts: 5. On 21.05.2006, at about 10.00 a.m., near Shanbaga Pudur Bridge, Sathyamangalam Taluk, a Mahindra Max pick up van loaded with brinjal driven by its owner Venkate Gowda towards Coimbatore from Mysore dashed against the passenger bus bearing registration No.TN 36 Z 9355. In the said accident the owner-cum-driver of the Mahindra Max pick up van Venkate Gowda died on the spot and two other occupants badly incurred. First Information Report was registered against Venkate Gowda-the deceased driver of the Mahindra Max pick up van. Based on the information given by the driver of the bus, both the vehicles were subjected to Motor Vehicle Inspector's inspection who has noted extensive damage on the front side of both the vehicles. First Information Report was registered against Venkate Gowda-the deceased driver of the Mahindra Max pick up van. Based on the information given by the driver of the bus, both the vehicles were subjected to Motor Vehicle Inspector's inspection who has noted extensive damage on the front side of both the vehicles. The complaint given by the driver of the bus Kandhasamy, who was arrayed as 1st respondent was closed as abated in view of the demise of the offender Venkate Gowda. 6. However in the claim petition, the facts were so presented as if the FIR was registered against the bus driver under in Cr.No.277 of 2006, which is totally contrary to the documentary evidence namely the FIR Ex.P.1. The Tribunal has also not properly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly concluded that the final report holds the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. This observation of the Tribunal would go to show that the learned Judge who delivered the said judgment has not properly perused the records. 7. Had it gone through the records scrupulously, the Tribunal would not held the appellant/Insurance Company solely responsible to pay the compensation and would have averted passing the erroneous award fixing the liability in toto on the Insurance Company. Hence, this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, interfere and modify the Tribunal award. 8. On going through the records, this Court finds that though the FIR is registered against the deceased van driver Venkate Gowda, the motor vehicle report indicates that it is head on collusion. Therefore, the negligence between both the drivers is apportioned equally and respective owners are liable to share the responsibility. Since Venkate Gowda himself is the owner of the pick up van which is one of the offending vehicle and also the tort-feasor, his legal heirs are not entitled for claiming compensation more than 50% from the insurer of the other vehicle namely the bus bearing registration No. TN 36 Z 9355. Regarding the quantum of compensation, this Court finds that though the claimants are made a high claim of Rs.75,000/- per month as the income of the deceased, there is no evidence. The Tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income of the victim as Rs.6,000/- p.m., and added 30% towards the future prospects. At the time of accident, the deceased was around 31 years. The Tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income of the victim as Rs.6,000/- p.m., and added 30% towards the future prospects. At the time of accident, the deceased was around 31 years. For loss of consortium and the loss of Love and Affection, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- in total and Rs.25,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. This Court finds that in the absence of proper evidence regarding income, the quantum of compensation is modified as below: Loss of dependency (Rs.7800 x 1/2x 12 x 17) Rs.7,95,600/- Loss of Consortium (1st claimant Wife) Rs.40,000/- Loss of Love and Affection (Claimants 2 and 3 Rs.20,000/- each) Rs.40,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.8,90,600/- 9. In the result, the compensation of Rs.12,85,800/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is modified to Rs.8,90,600/-. Out of which, the appellant who is the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal shall be responsible to pay 50% of the total compensation i.e., Rs.4,45,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. 10. From the records, this Court find that in compliance to the conditional order, the Insurance Company has already deposited Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the balance award amount with interest shall be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of the award amount with accrued interest and from the balance 50% of the award amount with accrued interest shall be equally shared by the 2nd and 3rd claimants (i.e.,25% each). The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the same on appropriate petition. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.