JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.834 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ District and Sessions Judge (Communal Clash Cases Court), Madurai.) 1. Insurance Company is the appellant herein. Challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.834 of 2017 on the ground of liability and negligence as well. The respondents 1 to 4 are the claim petitioners before the claim Tribunal filed the above M.C.O.P.No.834 of 2017 seeking compensation for the death of one Dilipan. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the tribunal. 3. The claim petitioners have come forward with the specific plea that on 02.11.2013 deceased Dilipan was riding a two wheeler, along with his friend one Balasubramanian as a pillion rider, bearing Registration No.TN 64 C 2225 proceedings towards Bykara to Periyar Bus stand on the left hand side of the road. At the time, a Yamaha two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 58 AC 1351 was coming on the opposite direction, namely, east to westward direction and one Kannan drove the said Yamaha-two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the said Dilipan died on the spot and the other rider of the two wheeler-Kannan was also died. The pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and hence they filed claim petition by impleading the owner of the vehicle as well as the respective Insurance Company. 4. The appellant Insurance Company filed a counter statement that due to the rash and negligent driving of both the rider of the two wheeler, the accident has taken place. 5. Before the trial Court, the claim petitioners examined Ex.PW1 to Ex.PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The original driving licence of the deceased Dilipan is marked as Ex.P14. On the side of the defendants, the one Balakrishnan-Assistant from the RTO office was examined as RW1 and on Court summons the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who had investigated the case and filed the charge sheet-Ex.R4 was examined as RW2 and the employer of the deceased was examined as RW3 and necessary document has been filed as Ex.P13 and Ex.RW1 to Ex.RW4 were marked. 6. PW2-Balasubramanian is the occurrence witness. 6. PW2-Balasubramanian is the occurrence witness. He deposed on the lines of the pleadings and as per his evidence, it is due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by Kannan. 7. Per contra, RW2-the Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Madurai Corporation Police, who deposed that as per the sketch Ex.C1, the scene of the crime shows on the western side of the road and his evidence is that the deceased Dilipan came from the west towards east and consequently the accident had taken place. 8. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW2 and RW2 and Ex.C1, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the part of both the drivers of the two wheeler and accordingly, fixed 25% liability upon the deceased Dilipan and 75% liability upon the said Kannan. 9. Admittedly, the rough sketch is not the reflection of fact. It is the position of the vehicles after the accident. Even to go by Ex.C1, it is likely deviated from the middle line of the road on the western side and hence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW2 - one of the injured to the accident is liable rather than RW2- Special Sub Inspector of Police, who had recorded the statement is fall under the category of hearsay. Hence, the said finding of the Tribunal that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Kannan and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Dilipan is hereby confirmed since the same does not suffering from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference at this appellate stage. 10. On the point of quantum of compensation, I have heard both the parties. 11. Based upon the Ex.P2, postmortem certificate, age of the deceased is fixed at 23 years and multiplier of 18' was adopted following Sarala Verma's case and based upon Ex.P13, the monthly income of the deceased Dilipan is fixed at Rs.14,500/-. The said Ex.P13 was marked through PW3-the Superintendent where the deceased was working. Following Pranay Sethy's case, 40% future prospects has been added and other conventional heads are also given. Hence, I find that on the quantum of compensation, various amount granted under various heads appears to be just and reasonable. The said Ex.P13 was marked through PW3-the Superintendent where the deceased was working. Following Pranay Sethy's case, 40% future prospects has been added and other conventional heads are also given. Hence, I find that on the quantum of compensation, various amount granted under various heads appears to be just and reasonable. Thus the total compensation cannot be termed as excessive and hence, I find no merit in the appeal and both the points raised by the insurance company stand negatived and the appeal is devoid of merits. 12. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners would also contend that the injured also filed M.C.O.P.No.78 of 2013 in which the Insurance Company has agreed and settled the matter before the Lok Adalat held on 25.03.2019. The same is hereby recorded. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree, dated 03.01.2020, made in M.C.O.P.No. 834 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ District and Sessions Judge (Communal Clash Cases Court), Madurai, is hereby confirmed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.