JUDGMENT :

This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sankari, in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2010, thereby awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,38,000/-

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 27.02.2010, when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a bicycle driven by his friend on the left side of the road, the first respondent's driver drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner and hit the back side of the cycle resulting which the deceased fell down and the lorry also capsized over the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately died. He was a heavy vehicle driver and aged about 45 years. He was earning salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. The first claimant is the wife of the deceased and other claimants are their children. Hence they filed claim petition seeking compensation at Rs.12,50,000/-.

4. Resisting the same, the third respondent filed counter by stating that only due to the negligent driving of the deceased and the cyclist, the accident took place as such, the third respondent is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The third respondent also denied the age, salary and avocation of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no material has been marked as exhibit. On the basis of the evidence available on records and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,38,000/- as compensation payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly or severally. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants came forward with the present appeal for enhancement of the award amount.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver and he was working in V.M.M. Transport owned by one Sellamuthu. He was drawing a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as salary. The co-driver of the deceased was examined as P.W.3 and he categorically deposed that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver and he was drawing the salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Even then, the Tribunal had fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- and also wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 14, since the deceased was died at the age of 45 years. The fourth respondent is none other than the mother of the deceased, as such there are totally five claimants and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income for the personal expenses for the deceased. Whereas the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses for the deceased. The Tribunal also failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased and therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the award amount.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the age of the deceased is 46 years and the Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier method of 13. Though the claimants examined P.W.3, no documentary evidence was produced to prove that the deceased was working as heavy vehicle driver in the V.M.M. Transport under one Sellamuthu. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and it doesn't require any enhancement. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard Mr.Suganthan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Ms.C.Bhuvana Sundari, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

9. The deceased was aged about 45 years and on 27.02.2010, he was met with an accident due to which he sustained grievo