P. Kalaiyarasan, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court, Erode) in M.C.O.P.No.414 of 2014, dated 26.10.2016 awarding compensation of Rs.76,04,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition to the second claimant, mother for the death of her son K.S.Mohammed Anees in a road accident.

2. It is averred in the petition that on 27.09.2013 at 1 a.m when the decased Mohammed Anees was travelling in a car bearing Regn. No.KL 60 D 6464 driven by one Sheik Shaaz Abdul Salam on the Mettupalayam to Annur main road, the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit against the road side tamarind tree, resulting the instant death of Mohammed Anees and also the driver. The deceased Mohammed Anees as qualified person was working as ordinary Seaman at V.Ships India Pvt., Ltd., Mumbai and earned monthly salary of 1718.36 USD per month. He was bachelor and gave his entire salary to his parents, the claimants. The claimants claim Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation from the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.

3. The respondent/insurance company who also got permission from the Court in the application under Section 170 of MV Act to take all defences available to the owner of the vehicle. No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode. Time, date and manner of accident are denied. It is false to aver that the deceased was qualified person to work in a ship and he was working as an ordinary Seaman at V.Ships India Pvt., Ltd., at Mumbai. The alleged salary and contribution to the family are also denied. The insured of the alleged offending vehicle has not paid any extra premium to cover the risk of occupants of the car. Therefore, the claim petition is to be dismissed.

4. On the side of the petitioners/claimants, three witnesses were examined and 72 exhibits marked. On the side of the respondent, two exhibits were marked and no witness was examined. After analysing the evidence both oral and documentary, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the mother, namely the second claimant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said award of compensation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the insurance company.

5. In this case while the deceased Mohammed Anees was travelling in the car bearing Regn. No.KL-60-D-6464, the driver hit the vehicle on the road side tamarind tree. In a case like this where the vehicle hit the road side tree, resulting the death of two persons including the driver, the principle of Res ipsa loquitor can be applied. P.W.2 also says in his evidence that the vehicle was driven by the driver rashly and negligently and hit against the road side tree. The FIR, rough sketch, observation mahazar and final report are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6. Therefore it is clear that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The offending vehicle owned by the first respondent in the claim petition was insured with the appellant/second respondent at the time of the accident. Though the Insurance company took a stand that the insured has not paid any extra premium to cover the risk of occupants of the car like the deceased person, there is no attempt on the side of the insurance company to establish the same either by producing the copy of the insurance policy or examining any witness on their side.

6. The main contentions in this appeal are that the Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased in the absence of any concrete proof and fixing the future prospects in addition to the salary is also not correct. It is also contended that multiplier 8 shoul