JUDGMENT (Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 689 of 2017, dated 25.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Special District Judge), Trichy.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.689 of 2017, dated 25.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Special District Judge), Trichy. 2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.689 of 2017, on the ground of quantum of compensation and negligence. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein, have filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Balu.After trial, a sum of Rs.9,02,800/- is awarded. Aggrieved against the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appelant/Insurance Company would contend that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of both the driver, the accident had taken place and hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability on the driver of the insured vehicle alone. Further, the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, according to them. 5. As per the pleadings and evidence of P.W.1 regarding the manner of the accident on 23.5.2017, the deceased Balu was standing near Seethai Pillai colony bus stop and at that time, a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 45 BA 0747 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Balu, who was standing on the extreme left side of the road. The deceased Balu sustained injuries all over the body and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy by Ambulance and wherein, he was admitted and he was died. 6. As per the Insurance Company, the deceased Balu was coming from East to West direction in his two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 45 BK 2767 in a hectic speed without observing the other vehicles in the main road which is running north south and suddenly crossed the road. The deceased Balu has lost his control over his vehicle and dashed it on the first respondent's motor cycle in the middle of the road. Had he drove the vehicle carefully, the accident could not have been occurred. Actually, the first respondent drove the vehicle adhearing the traffic rules at normal speed. The deceased Balu has lost his control over his vehicle and dashed it on the first respondent's motor cycle in the middle of the road. Had he drove the vehicle carefully, the accident could not have been occurred. Actually, the first respondent drove the vehicle adhearing the traffic rules at normal speed. Furthermore, the first respondent, on seeing the deceased suddenly crossing the road, stop the vehicle. Inspite of it, the deceased dashed against the stationed vehicle and fell down, since he lost his control over his vehicle and relied on 2019(1) TN MAC 495(The National Insurance CompanyLimited, Salem – 636 601 .vs. Illayaraj and others) and prayed to fix the contributory negligence at 50:50%. 7. P.W.2 is the occurrence witness and the claim petitioners have marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and on the side of the respondent R.W. 1 is examined and no document has been marked and third party documents Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. EXX1-Rough Sketch prepared by the Police after the accident and Ex.X2 is the observation Mahazar. 8. P.W.2 occurrence in his witness stated that the accident was happened when the deceased was crossing the road from Ikbal colony to Head Post Office.Ex.P1 is the copy of the FIR registered against the driver of the first respondent. R.W.1 is the Special Inspector of Police attached with Trichy South Traffic Investigation Wing. Through him, the copy of the rough sketch prepared by the Investigation officer was marked as Ex.X1 and the copy of the Observing Mahazar was marked as Ex.X2. On perusal of Ex.X1, the accident was happened and the place of occurrence is noted at nearby the center median. The place of occurrence is four way junction. R.W.1 stated in his evidence that the person who caused the accident was overtaking the holding bus on the left hand side and caused the accident. As per R.W.1, the driver of the first respondent who drove the motor cycle has caused the accident. On perusal of the available evidence on record, when the deceased has drove the motor cycle and the driver of the first respondent's motor cycle overtook a bus which was halted for some time for smooth traffic,the first respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and overtook the bus and caused the accident. On perusal of the available evidence on record, when the deceased has drove the motor cycle and the driver of the first respondent's motor cycle overtook a bus which was halted for some time for smooth traffic,the first respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and overtook the bus and caused the accident. He is the responsible person for the accident and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the deceased. 9. It is the specic evidence of Police R.W.1 that the person who caused the accident was overtaking the parked bus on the leftern side and thus caused the accident. The evidence of P.W.2, an independent witness, as observed earlier, is that while the deceased is driving his motor cycle,the rider of the first respondent motor cycle overtook the bus which is halted for some time and without noticing the deceased was travelled ahead of him and hence, I find that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased, however it is due to the rash and negligent manner in which the driver of the offending vehicle had drove the vehicle that was insured with the first respondent. In view of the specific evidence of P.W.2, an independent witness coupled with documents Ex.X1 and Ex.X2, I find that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent which is insured with the appellant Insurance Company and hence, I have no other hesistation to negative the contention raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in this regard. 10. On the point of quantum of compensation, both the parties have been heard. 11. As per Ex.P2-Post-mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was noted as 60 years old and he is said to be selling Murukku and hence, the transport Corporation has taken the notional income at Rs.9,000/-.Since the accident is of the year 2017, the same cannot be termed as excessive following the Pranay Sethy's case, he is entitled to 10% of the income towards future prospects and hence it will be Rs.9,900/-. Since there are three dependants, the Tribunal has deducted one third of the monthly income as personal expense and fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,600/- and hence the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 6600x12x9 = Rs7,12,800/-. Since there are three dependants, the Tribunal has deducted one third of the monthly income as personal expense and fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,600/- and hence the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 6600x12x9 = Rs7,12,800/-. The wife is entitled to loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- and the petitioners 2,3 and4 each are entitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/-, totally Rs. 1,20,000/-. Loss of Estate at Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000/- totally awarded a sum of Rs.9,02,800/- by the Tribunal is just and fair, which does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed and the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. No costs.Consequently, connected Misellaneous Petition is dismissed.