V.M. Velumani, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside or modify the order of the Tribunal made in M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2007, dated 24.11.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sivakasi and allow the appeal with costs.

2. The appellant Insurance Company, filed the appeal against the order, dated 24.11.2010, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,34,500/-. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 have filed M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 2007, claiming compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-, for the death of husband of the first respondent, father of the second respondent and son of the third respondent, who died in the accident, that occurred on 18.11.2007.

3. Facts of the case:-

According to the respondents 1 to 3, the fourth respondent was driving Hero Honda Motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against one Ramakrishnan, from behind. Due to which, the said Ramakrishnan sustained injuries and died, in spite of medical treatment. The deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- at the time of accident. He was aged about 37 years and therefore, they claimed Rs. 7,00,000/-, as compensation.

4. The fourth respondent/owner and rider of the vehicle denied all the allegations made by the respondents 1 to 3. According to the fourth respondent, he was driving the vehicle carefully. The deceased was drunk at the time of alleged accident. He suddenly tried to cross the road in front of the vehicle of fourth respondent and he fell down in the road and sustained injuries. He suffered injuries only due to his own negligence. He also stated that the appellant, who is the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

5. The appellant filed counter statement stating that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving by the fourth respondent, but the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased. The appellant also stated that the fourth respondent did not have any valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one Velmurugan eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and three documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A3. The fourth respondent did not examine himself and did not mark any documents. The appellant examined two witnesses, viz., one Rabija Banu and one Jeyaprakash, as R.Ws.1 & 2 and marked three documents as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

7. The Tribunal based on the pleadings and evidence concluded that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the fourth respondent and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,34,500/-. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fourth respondent has violated the policy condition and did not have any valid licence for driving the two wheeler. The Tribunal wrongly held that the rider of the motorcycle was in possession of LMV licence and he was not disqualified in driving the motorcycle. The Tribunal is not correct in fixing the age of the deceased as 37 years and adopting multiplier of 16, when there is no proof for the same. The learned counsel for appellant relied on the following judgments :

(i) 2009 (1) TNMAC 242 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Angad Kol & others), wherein in paragraphs 18 & 19, it has been held as follows :

18. From the discussions made herein before, it is, thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the Insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records.

19. By an order dated 10.7.2008, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if we, in exercise of our