JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.) Common Judgment" V.M. Velumani, J. 1. C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. 2. C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. 3. C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased and seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. 4. C.M.A.Nos.2641 of 2019 & 3163 of 2019 arise out of the same award and C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 arise out of different award. All the three appeals arise out of the same accident and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the respective claim petitions, for the sake of convenience. 6. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Shankar, who died in the accident that took place on 09.10.2014. 7. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her son Ramachandran, who died in the accident that took place on 09.10.2014. 8. 7. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her son Ramachandran, who died in the accident that took place on 09.10.2014. 8. According to claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps, on 09.10.2014 at about 09.30 P.M., while the deceased Shankar was riding the Yamaha Crux motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 39 AH 7705 along with the deceased Ramachandran as pillion rider from South to North direction on the Dharapuram – Tirupur road, near A.G.College, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 2735, who was driving the lorry from the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Shankar and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, both the Shankar as well as Ramachandran were thrown on the road, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants filed the above said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- & Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Shankar and Ramachandran respectively, against the respondents who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry respectively. 9. The respondents 1 & 2, who are the driver and owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal in both the M.C.O.Ps. 10. The 3rd respondent – Insurance Company filed separate counter statement in both the M.C.O.Ps and commonly denied all the averments made by the claimants in the claim petitions. According to 3rd respondent, the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent was insured with them and the insurance period is from 11.03.2014 to 10.03.2015. The 3rd respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps. According to 3rd respondent, while the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle on the Dharapuram – Tiruppur road, near A.G.College from South to North on the western side of the road, the motorcycle hit against the person who was walking in front from North to South and due to the same, the rider and pillion rider were thrown out of the motorcycle, dragged further towards right side and dashed on the lorry which was coming from North to South direction and stopped. Further, the complaint was preferred by the close relative to the victim. Further, the complaint was preferred by the close relative to the victim. At the time of accident, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motorcycle were not wearing helmet. Further, both of them were under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and they are responsible for the death of the pedestrian Muthukumar. The motorcycle driven by the deceased Shankar was not insured at the time of accident. Hence, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The Avinashipalayam Police have registered a case against the rider of the motorcycle in Crime No.305 of 2014 under Sections 279, 337 & 304 of Indian Penal Code and the said case was closed as the rider of the motorcycle died. In the final report also it was stated that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased Shankar and the final report was filed as 'further action dropped' as the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle died in the accident. The 2nd respondent have to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of deceased and the name of driver and particulars of driving license. The claimants have to prove that they are depending only on the income of the deceased. The 3rd respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased in both the M.C.O.Ps. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants in both M.C.O.Ps are excessive and prayed for dismissal of both the M.C.O.Ps against the 3rd respondent. 11. Before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, the 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and three witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company examined three witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked 13 documents as Exs.R1 to R13. 12. Before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.W.2 & P.W.3 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company examined two witnesses as R.W.1 & R.W.2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10. 13. 12. Before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.W.2 & P.W.3 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company examined two witnesses as R.W.1 & R.W.2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.R1 to R10. 13. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by both the driver of the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent as well as the rider of the motorcycle, fixed 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and 50% negligence on both the rider as well as pillion rider of the motorcycle and directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.8,58,800/- and Rs.7,50,600/- respectively, being 50% of the award amount as compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.1898 & 1964 of 2014 respectively. 14. Challenging the liability fastened on them as well as quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the awards dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 & M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company has come out with the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.2879 of 2018 and 2641 of 2019 respectively. 15. Challenging the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, the claimant has come out with an appeal in C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019. 16. Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 / respondents 1 to 5 in C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 contended that the driver of the lorry was only responsible for the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal without considering the same, has fixed 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the same is not correct and prayed for dismissal of C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018. 17. Mrs.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 contended that the deceased was only a pillion rider and he was no way connected with negligence. The Tribunal erred in fixing 50% negligence on the part of the deceased. The proceedings in M.C.O.P. cases are summary in nature. 17. Mrs.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 contended that the deceased was only a pillion rider and he was no way connected with negligence. The Tribunal erred in fixing 50% negligence on the part of the deceased. The proceedings in M.C.O.P. cases are summary in nature. Strict proof as required in Civil and Criminal case is not necessary in M.C.O.P. cases before the Tribunal. The claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act cannot be decided on technicalities. The Tribunal should take care of the innocent victim and the owner and tort-feasor should not be escaped. The statement on oath prevails over the contents of F.I.R. The Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased by relying on rough sketch. The Tribunal erred in not accepting the evidence of P.W.3. in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years, running Barber shop at Avinashipalayam in the name and style of K.R.A. Muthu Hairlines and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal without considering the same, has fixed a meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and awarded lesser compensation. The Tribunal ought to have granted more than 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency, loss of estate, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transportation are meagre and prayed for dismissal of C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company and for setting aside the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and for enhancement of compensation. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed entire negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle only hit the pedestrian and came to the right hand side, lost control and hit against the halted lorry. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed both the claim petitions for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. F.I.R. was registered only against the rider of the motorcycle, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed both the claim petitions for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. F.I.R. was registered only against the rider of the motorcycle, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Without any evidence, the Tribunal erroneously fixed 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and liability on the Insurance Company and prayed for setting aside the awards passed in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 & in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 and for dismissal of C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019 filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014. 19. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 and perused the entire materials on record. 20. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps that while one Shankar was riding the motorcycle along with one Ramachandran as pillion rider on the Dharapuram – Tirupur road, near A.G.College, the driver of the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent, who was driving the lorry from the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Shankar and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, both the Shankar as well as Ramachandran were thrown on the road, sustained injuries and died on the spot. To substantiate their contention, the claimants in both M.C.O.Ps examined one Ponnusamy, eyewitness to the accident as P.W.3 in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 and as P.W.2 in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, examined one Nachimuthu @ Natrayan as P.W.4 in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 and as P.W.3 in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1 in both the M.C.O.Ps. 21. It is the case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, who dashed on the pedestrian and came to right hand side and dashed on the lorry and caused the accident. It is the further case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the F.I.R. is registered based on the complaint given by one Nachimuthu @ Natrayan against the rider of the motorcycle and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps. It is the further case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the F.I.R. is registered based on the complaint given by one Nachimuthu @ Natrayan against the rider of the motorcycle and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps. To substantiate their contention, the Insurance Company examined the Inspector of Police, Avinashipalayam Police Station viz., Chinnaraj as R.W.1 and the driver of the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent as R.W.2. R.W.1 is not the Investigating Officer and he deposed based on the available records. The complainant Nachimuthu @ Natrayan issued Ex.P5 / notice to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Avinashipalayam and Ex.P7 / notice to Superintendent of Police, Tirupur, stating that he did not give any complaint based on which F.I.R. was registered. According to the said Nachimuthu @ Natrayan, the Police took his signature in the blank paper and filled up the same as though he gave the complaint. The claimants also produced acknowledgement card and marked the same as Exs.P6 and P8 in both the M.C.O.Ps. R.W.1 also admitted the receipt of Ex.P5 by the Inspector of Police and R.W.1 deposed that he did not know whether any action was taken based on the said letter. The said Nachimuthu @ Natrayan deposed that he was enquired by the Avinashipalayam Police, but there is no evidence to show that the Police has taken action on the said notices. In view of Exs.P5 & P7, contents of Ex.P1/F.I.R., cannot be relied on by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 21(a). The claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps examined one Ponnusamy, alleged eyewitness as P.W.3 in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 and as P.W.2 in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014. The said Ponnusamy deposed that he was present at the place of occurrence and he knew the deceased Shankar, rider of the motorcycle, but he did not give any complaint and according to him, he left the place of occurrence within 10 minutes of accident before the dead bodies were taken. The action of the said Ponnusamy, who knew the rider of the motorcycle, not having lodged complaint with Police and leaving the place of occurrence before the dead bodies were taken creates a suspicion about his presence at the time of accident. The Tribunal rightly held that his evidence is untrustworthy. 21(b). The action of the said Ponnusamy, who knew the rider of the motorcycle, not having lodged complaint with Police and leaving the place of occurrence before the dead bodies were taken creates a suspicion about his presence at the time of accident. The Tribunal rightly held that his evidence is untrustworthy. 21(b). The said Nachimuthu @ Natrayan is not an eyewitness and only after hearing the news, he reached the place of occurrence. In view of the same, even if he has given complaint to the Police that accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, the same is only hearsay and he has denied having given any such complaint. 21(c). R.W.2 – driver of the lorry went to the police along with the lorry after the accident. He did not give any complaint to the Police. He also did not produce the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. R.W.2 admitted that rider of the motorcycle after hitting the pedestrian, came to right hand side and dashed on the lorry and caused the accident. By his evidence, it is an admitted fact that the motorcycle and lorry colluded and accident occurred. 21(d). Apart from R.W.2, an interested witness, no other independent witness was examined by the Insurance Company to prove the manner of accident and that only the rider of the motorcycle was negligent and caused the accident. In the absence of any evidence or eyewitness, the Tribunal considering Ex.R2 / rough sketch, evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, R.W.1 & R.W.2 and documents filed, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the driver of the lorry as well as rider of the motorcycle and fixed 50% negligence on both the driver of the lorry and rider of the motorcycle. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 21(e). Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 that the pillion rider of the motorcycle was not at all responsible for the accident and 50% negligence fixed on the part of the pillion rider is erroneous is not acceptable. Once 50% negligence is fixed on the rider of the motorcycle or pillion rider of the motorcycle, the claimants are not entitled to entire compensation. Once 50% negligence is fixed on the rider of the motorcycle or pillion rider of the motorcycle, the claimants are not entitled to entire compensation. The insurer of the lorry cannot be held liable for payment of entire compensation. 22. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned in C.M.A.Nos.2641 & 3163 of 2019, it is the case of the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 that her son was aged 21 years, running Barber shop at Avinashipalayam in the name and style of K.R.A. Muthu Hairlines and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. To prove the said contention, the claimant examined one Nachimuthu @ Natrayan as P.W.3. Except oral evidence, the claimant has not proved the income of the deceased by producing documentary evidence. In the absence of any materials with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2014 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is meagre. Considering the age, nature of work and year of accident, a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month is fixed as notional income of the deceased. As per Ex.P2 / postmortem certificate and Ex.P3 / death certificate, the deceased Ramachandran was aged 20 years at the time of accident. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), [National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], the Tribunal has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier 18'. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of deducting 1/3rd. Thus, by fixing a sum of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, applying multiplier 18' and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.13,60,800/- {Rs.12,600/- [Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/- (40% of Rs.9,000/-)] X 12 X 18 X 1/2}. Thus, by fixing a sum of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, applying multiplier 18' and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.13,60,800/- {Rs.12,600/- [Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/- (40% of Rs.9,000/-)] X 12 X 18 X 1/2}. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, which is excessive and the same is modified as the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 14,11,200/- 13,60,800/- Reduced 2. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 3. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 5. Loss of love and Affection 50,000/- - Set aside 6. Filial consortium - 40,000/- Granted Total 50% of Compensation Rs.15,01,200/- Rs.7,50,600/- Rs.14,40,800/- Rs.7,20,400/- Reduced by Rs.30,200/- (Rs.7,50,600/- - Rs.7,20,400/-) 23. In the result, (i) C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 is dismissed and the sum of Rs.8,58,800/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants along with interest and costs is confirmed. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with 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, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. On such deposit, the claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimants 4 & 5 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor claimants 4 & 5 attain majority. The share of the minor claimants 4 & 5 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor claimants 4 & 5 attain majority. On such deposit, the 1st claimant, being the mother of the minor claimants 4 & 5 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor claimants 4 & 5. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (ii) C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019 is also partly allowed with regard to monthly income of the deceased. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.7,50,600/- is hereby reduced to Rs.7,20,400/-. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, if the entire award amount has been already deposited by them. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.