JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.One Sundaram, a per meant resident at Periyathatchur Agaram Village, Dindivanam Taluk was returning from Kollidam Thaikkal with his hand cart to his house in Kalaignar Colony at about 20.00 hours on 16.01.1990, when a tractor bearing Registration No. TCO-6043 attached with a Trailor bearing Registration No. TCO-6044, belonging to the 2nd respondent in MCOP No. 206/90 (on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam), driven by one Jagannathan (first respondent in the MCOP) in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him and the cart.In the said incident, the deceased Sundaram sustained serious injuries and subsequently died in Poosai Hospital at Kollidam.Respondents-1 to 4 herein, as petitioners, filed MCOP No. 206 of 1990 against the appellant and Respondents-5 to 7 herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation at Rs.1,25,000/-.The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Sundaram while Respondents-2 and 3 are the minor children and the 4th respondent is the sister of the said Sundaram.The appellant herein viz., the owner of the said vehicle resisted the petition contending that the Tractor was driven by the driver slowly and cautiously and it was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road without noticing the tractor, which ultimately resulted in the accident.Yet another contention has been raised to the effect that he purchased the tractor and trailor under Hire Purchase Scheme from the State Bank of India, Sirkali Branch, the 6th respondent in this appeal and who has agreed to insure the vehicle and renew the same from time to time till the entire loan is cleared and collect the premium from the appellant.In fact, the said Bank did so for the first three years, but however, omitted to renew the Insurance Policy probably due to oversight or negligence.Instead of renewing the policy on or before the expiry date, the Bank paid the premium only on 18.01.1990 that was on the 3rd day of the accident.The Sixth respondent herein viz., State Bank of India, filed a counter statement, denying the claim that they paid the insurance premium for the vehicle to the Insurance Company and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the claimants.According to the Bank, the loan was advanced on an agreement for hypothecation of the vehicle and therefore, the petitioner has got a first charge over the vehicle for realisation of the loan advanced to the owner of the vehicle.4.The 7th respondent herein viz., the Insurance Company claimed that since the accident was on 16.01.1990 and the Insurance Policy expired well before that, and the same was renewed only subsequently, that was on 18.1.1990, the Insurance Company is not in any way liable to pay any amount.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and fixed the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.83,500/- with interest at 12% per annum thereon.Thirdly, it held that the said amount has to be paid only by the owner of the vehicle viz, the appellant herein and completely absolved the Insurance Company of the liability.The owner of the vehicle viz., the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the above appeal.Respondents-1 to 4 viz., the claimants in the MCOP., have filed Cross Objection No. 57/94, claiming compensation as claimed in the Original Petition.We heard the elaborate submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties.The materials available on record have also been perused.8.Three questions arise for consideration viz., :-(a) Whether the driver of the vehicle was negligent and because of which, the accident had happened?(b) What is the amount of compensation payable to Respondents-1 to 4 viz., the claimants in the O.P.?(c) Who is liable to pay the compensation?As far as the first question is concerned, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, for the following reasons:-(i) PW-2 is an eye witness to the occurrence and who is also a person, carrying on a similar profession that of the deceased.He has categorically deposed that he was pulling his cart which was loaded with cement slabs and going behind the deceased, when the accident took place.We perused his testimony and we find no reason to disbelieve the same.(ii) Secondly, the version given by the driver of the tractor is totally contrary to the contents that are found in the complaint given by him before the police.(iii) Thirdly, the motor vehicle Inspector, after proper test, issued Ex.P-3 certificate, which is to the effect that there was no mechanical defect in the said vehicle.(iv) Finally, the driver was prosecuted before the Criminal Court for an offence under Section 304(A) IPC., found guilty and paid fine.The next question is as to what is the amount of compensation that is payable to R-1 to R-4, the claimants in the MCOP.In the petition, it is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1200/- per month.The wife of the deceased, as P.W.1, has deposed before Court that the deceased used to earn a sum of Rs.40 to 50/- per day and out of which, he used to pay Rs.10 to 15/- towards the hire charges for the cart.The Tribunal, proceeded on the basis that he would have earned for 25 days in a month, fixed the monthly income at Rs.625/-, and out of which, it deducted the amount which he would have spent for himself and applying the multiplier of 15, fixed the compensation at Rs.58,500/-.PW-1 would claim that her husband used to earn Rs.40/- to 50/- per day and out of which, he used to give Rs.10/- towards hire charges for the cart.PW.3, the owner of the cart has also deposed that he used to collect Rs.10/- from the deceased towards hire charges.So, even taking that the deceased was earning Rs.40/- per day and out of which, deducting Rs.10/- as hire charges, one would arrive at a figure of Rs.30/-.Therefore, on that basis, it can be safely taken that he would have earned a sum of Rs.900/- per month.This Court, applying the unit method, decides to deduct Rs.250/- and take Rs.650/- as the amount he would have contributed to the family per month.Applying the multiplier of 13, we arrive at a figure of Rs.1,01,400/-.With this, we add Rs.15,000/- in all under various heads for special damages including transportation, damages to clothes, cremation expenses, loss of love and affection and arrive at the figure of Rs.1,16,400/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand four hundred only) with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of petition.The learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India at this juncture would contend that since the appellant is questioning only the correctness of the order, in that the Tribunal has not fastened the liability on the bank, the cross objection is not maintainable.But if one goes through the grounds of appeal, particularly ground Nos.5, 7, 10, the appellant has specifically questioned the quantum.The next question is, as to who is liable to pay the compensation.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that only because of the negligence on the part of the State Bank in not renewing the policy before it expired, he has been now made liable to pay and that further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have directed the State bank to pay the compensation.Learned counsel appearing for the State Bank would contend that though it reserved a right to pay the Insurance Policy if it so desires, no duty was cast on it as per the agreement and that being so, the Bank cannot be fastened with the liability.There can be no doubt with regard to the ownership of the vehicle.On 15.8.1990 when the appellant was driving the car along with others, met with an accident on the National Highway.Let us proceed to consider the second point.We have also pointed out that the State Bank has filed rather a false counter statement in that it has even denied having paid premium for two years i.e., for 1988 and 1989, prior to the accident.In this case, though the claimants have a remedy, as on date the question of their neglecting to avail themselves of the same, does not arise.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

Cited provisions: Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code