JUDGMENT (Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No. 2005 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Tract Court No.1, Madurai dated 24.08.2010.) 1.The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the award passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Tract No.1, Madurai in MCOP.No.2005 of 2005 wherein an award was passed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. 2. According to the claimants, the deceased aged about 27 years was working as a Junior Engineer in Hindu Newspaper, Trivandrum and drawing a salary of Rs10,000/- per month. While he was riding his Hero Honda Splendor Motor Bike from north to south direction in West Veli Street, a Bajaj CT 100 driven by the first respondent came in the east-west direction from Town Hall Road and dashed against the Splendor Bike in which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died on his way to hospital. According to the claimants, the driver of both the two wheelers had driven in a rash and negligent manner. The claimants had prayed for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation. 3. The second respondent who is the insurer of Bajaj CT 100 had filed a counter contending that the claimants have not specifically mentioned about the manner of accident. He had have further contended that an F.I.R has been registered only as against the deceased person on the ground that he was solely responsible for the alleged accident. The deceased being a tortfeasor, his legal heirs are not entitled to maintain a claim petition. 4. The Insurance Company had further contended that the Bajaj CT 100 though it was insured with the second respondent, the driver of the said vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time. The Insurance Company had further contended that the Splendor Bike was neither insured nor the driver was having any driving licence at the relevant point of time. They have also questioned the quantum of compensation. Hence, he prayed for exonerating the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal had found that the oral evidence let in by the claimants is not satisfactory to the effect that the negligence was on the part of the rider of the Bajaj CT 100. They have also questioned the quantum of compensation. Hence, he prayed for exonerating the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal had found that the oral evidence let in by the claimants is not satisfactory to the effect that the negligence was on the part of the rider of the Bajaj CT 100. The Tribunal was convinced that only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, the accident has taken place. The Tribunal had relied upon the F.I.R which is marked as Exhibit P1 and deposition of RW4 who was a pillion rider of Bajaj CT 100. The Tribunal ultimately found that the deceased was the tortfeasor and his legal heirs are not entitled to receive any compensation except a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. This award is under challenge in the present appeal by the claimants. 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants /claimants even as per the F.I.R, the deceased was driving his two wheeler from north to south direction in West Veli Street and the other vehicle came from east-west direction from the Town Hall Road and entered into the main road. Therefore, the negligence cannot be solely fixed upon the deceased person and the same ought to have been shared between the driver of the Bajaj CT 100 and the driver of the Hero Hondo Splendor namely the deceased person. When there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the Bajaj CT 100, the Tribunal ought to have considered the claim of the petitioners for demand of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The award of the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Act mulcting the total negligence on the part of the deceased is not sustainable in the facts of the case. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company had contended that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident and the F.I.R was registered as against him. The said F.I.R was closed on the ground that the accused had passed away. The claimants have not let in any substantial evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Bajaj CT 100. The said F.I.R was closed on the ground that the accused had passed away. The claimants have not let in any substantial evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Bajaj CT 100. He had further pointed out that even as per the averments in the claim petition, the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the vehicles. Therefore, even the claimants have admitted that the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle. The learned counsel had further contended that the Splendor Bike which was driven by the deceased was not insured at the relevant point of time. The deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence. He had further pointed out that the driver of Bajaj CT 100 was also not having driving licence at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased had solely contributed to the accident and the Tribunal was right in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability and rejecting the prayer under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The Tribunal had rejected the prayer for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act primarily on the ground that the claimants have not established the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that two motor bikes had dashed against each other in an accident that took place at about 1.30 a.m on 24.04.2005 in front of Thanga Reegal Threatre, Town Hall Road, Madurai. 10. One Charles had travelled as a pillion rider in the Bajaj CT 100 which was driven by Hariharan. He is the defacto complainant in the F.I.R registered in Crime No.1079 of 2005 on the file of the Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai. The said complaint has been lodged at 5.30 a.m on 24.04.2005. 10. One Charles had travelled as a pillion rider in the Bajaj CT 100 which was driven by Hariharan. He is the defacto complainant in the F.I.R registered in Crime No.1079 of 2005 on the file of the Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai. The said complaint has been lodged at 5.30 a.m on 24.04.2005. In the complaint, the said Charles had stated that Bajaj CT 100 was driven by Hariharan and it was came from Town Hall Road and when he attempted to turn on the right side into the West Veli Street, the vehicle driven by the first claimant''s son which was moving from north to south had dashed against the bike. The said accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the Splendor Bike. This is the sum and substance of the complaint before the police. The said complainant has been examined as RW4. In his chief examination, he has simply stated that the vehicle in which he was a pillion rider was dashed against on the rear side by the Splendor Bike. Apart from that no other details have been furnished in the chief examination. 11. Exhibit R2 is the investigation report filed by the investigator appointed out by the insurance company. Along with the said report, the motor vehicle inspector''s report of both the vehicles has been annexed. A perusal of the motor vehicle report indicates that both the vehicles have been heavily damaged in the front side. Therefore, it is clear that it is a head on collusion between two two-wheelers. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the West Veli Street is running in the north-south direction and the Town Hall Road is running in the east-west direction. As per the F.I.R lodged by RW4, the Bajaj CT 100 vehicle was attempting to move from the Branch Road into the West Veli Street by taking a right turn. On the other hand, the Bike driven by the son of the first claimant was driven in the north-south direction in a straight road which is a main road. As per the F.I.R lodged by RW4, the Bajaj CT 100 vehicle was attempting to move from the Branch Road into the West Veli Street by taking a right turn. On the other hand, the Bike driven by the son of the first claimant was driven in the north-south direction in a straight road which is a main road. Therefore, it is clear that the rider of the Bajaj CT 100 who was attempting to enter from the Branch road into the main road by taking a right turn should have been more cautious enough than the one who was riding on a straight main road. The Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that even as per the contents of the F.I.R, there was negligence on the part of the rider of the Bajaj CT 100. The Tribunal though relied upon the F.I.R and the deposition of RW4, has not properly appreciated the contents of both the documents. 12. Considering the fact that the front portion of both the two wheelers have been heavily damaged and the son of the first claimant was driving the vehicle on the main road and the offending vehicle was attempting to enter into the main road, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is a negligence on the rider of both the vehicles. The claimants in their claim petition have also contended that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the driver of both the two wheelers. Hence, the claimants have established the fact that the driver of both the two wheelers were responsible for the said accident. 13. Considering the manner of accident and the damage to the vehicles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the negligence on the part of the rider of the Splendor Motor Bike could be fixed at 30% and the negligence on the part of the rider of the Bajaj CT 100 could be fixed at 70%. 14. The deceased was working as a Junior Engineer in Hindu Newspaper at Trivandrum Office. As per the claim petition, he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants have produced the salary slip for the month of February 2005 as Exhibit P4. The computerized pay slip indicates that he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,455/- as Net Pay. The deceased was working as a Junior Engineer in Hindu Newspaper at Trivandrum Office. As per the claim petition, he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants have produced the salary slip for the month of February 2005 as Exhibit P4. The computerized pay slip indicates that he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,455/- as Net Pay. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that after deduction, the deceased was receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- in February 2005 and he passed away in April 2005. 15. Considering the fact that he was a Junior Engineer and aged about 27 years, his future prospects could be fixed at 50% of the actual salary. The age of the deceased being 27 at the time of his death, the correct multiplier is 17. The claimant having died as a bachelor, 50% of the amount should be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the total loss of dependency is Rs.15,30,000/- ( Rs.7500x12x17). The deceased had left behind him his parents, sister and brother. The parents would be entitled to receive at Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and his sister and brother would be each entitled to receive Rs.40.000/- towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.15,000/- could be awarded towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. 16. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to fix the award amount is as follows: (i).Loss of dependency                     Rs. 15,30,000.00 (ii).Parental consortium(40,000x2)     Rs. 80,000.00 (iii). Loss of love and affection (40,000x2) Rs. 80,000.00 (iv).Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 (v).Loss of estate                                       Rs. 15,000.00 ------------------- Rs. 17, 20, 000.00 --------------------- 17. Out of the said compensation, 30% should be deducted towards contributory negligence. Therefore, the compensation amount will be arrived at Rs.12,04,000/-. Out of the said amount, 10% shall be deducted toward Income Tax. Therefore, the total compensation amount is Rs.10,83,600/-. The first respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.10,83,600/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of the claim petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants 1 and 2 who are the parents shall be each entitled to receive Rs.3,00,000/-. On such deposit, the claimants 1 and 2 who are the parents shall be each entitled to receive Rs.3,00,000/-. The balance amount shall be shared equally by the third claimant and third respondent in the claim petition who are the sister and brother of the deceased. 18. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs.