Judgment :- 1. These C.M.A.No.1107 of 1993 and Cross-Objection No.48 of 1995, arising out of a common judgment, are being disposed of by this common judgment: 2. Messrs. Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.1107 of 1993 challenging the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1359 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy, directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000 as against the total compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to the claimants on the ground of negligence and of quantum. 3. The claimants/respondents in the appeal, having dissatisfied with the quantum of Rs.3,00,000 have filed the cross-objection No.48 of 1995 seeking for enhancement of the compensation by requesting an additional sum of Rs,1,50,000 restricting their claim to Rs,4,50,000. 4. The facts that are required for the disposal of the above matters are as follows: (a) Srinivasan, deceased in this case was practising as a lawyer in both civil and criminal cases in the courts situated at Trichy and other areas. On 13.5.1990 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased was coming on his T.V.S.50 from West to East keeping his left on Salem-Trichy Road. When he was nearing Nochiam, the bus bearing registration No.TML.5636 belonging to the appellant-Corporation came in the opposite direction. The bus which was driven rashly and negligently came to the wrong side of the Road and hit against the TVS.50, thereby knocked down the deceased. The deceased, having sustained multiple grievous injuries, was taken to the hospital. However, he died on the way to the hospital. The deceased at the time of death was aged about 38 years and had put in 11 years of practice. The claimants, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the wife and two children viz., a son and a daughter of the deceased. The wife, aged about 30 years, the son, aged about 10 years and the daughter aged about 5 years, have filed a claim petition seeking for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 (b) The above claim was contested by the appellant-Corporation by filing a counter and examining its driver as R.W.1 stating that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver and as such, the appellant-Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation. (c) On the side of the claimants, the first claimant, wife was examined as P.W.1 and the eye witness Rangaraj was examined as P.W.2, through whom Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, R.W.1, the driver was examined, through whom Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. Since the parents of the deceased were made as respondents in the claim petition, claiming share in the compensation, the father of the deceased was examined as R.W.2. (d) On a careful scrutiny of the materials placed before the tribunal, it concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the bus and that the claimants and the parents of the deceased were entitled to the compensation of Rs,3,00,000. The tribunal further directed that out of total compensation, the claimants the wife and the children of the deceased are entitled to get 75% and the parents of the deceased are entitled to get 25%. 5. The said order is put at issue in this appeal before this Court, As indicated earlier, the claimants and the parents of the deceased have jointly filed the cross-objection seeking enhancement of the compensation stating that the compensation amount awarded was on the lower side. 6. Mr.Rathinamani, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Mr.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for cross-objectors would submit their respective submissions in support of their pleas. 7. I shall refer at the outset, regarding the negligence the part of the driver of the bus belonged to the appellant-Corporation. 8. The claimants have proved through P.W.2 that the driver of the bus which was coming from East to West drove the bus rashly and negligently and hit against the deceased who was coming in the opposite direction and dragged both the vehicle and the deceased to a considerable distance of about 50 feet from the place of impact. 9. As a matter of fact, it is seen from the materials that there is no attempt made by the driver even to apply brake. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, has been corroborated not only by Ex.A-3, the F.I.R. registered by the police, but also through Ex.B-1. Observation Mahazar and Ex.B-2 sketch marked through the driver. 10. It is seen from the sketch Ex.B-2, the bus was driven towards the right side and caused the impact. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, has been corroborated not only by Ex.A-3, the F.I.R. registered by the police, but also through Ex.B-1. Observation Mahazar and Ex.B-2 sketch marked through the driver. 10. It is seen from the sketch Ex.B-2, the bus was driven towards the right side and caused the impact. This would clearly show that the driver came on the wrong side and hit against the deceased, who was riding the TVS.50 on his left side. Therefore, the tribunal has correctly concluded that the evidence of R.W.1 is liable to be rejected and the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness was worthy of acceptance. In such a situation, there is no valid reason to countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to negligence. 11. As regards the quantum, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the awarding of the compensation was without proper calculation and without assigning any proper reason. According to him, the total award of Rs.3,00,000 is very much on the higher side and unjust. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors, while accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the awarding of the compensation was without proper calculation would state that the cross-objectors are entitled to get more amount of compensation and that the principles relating to the assessment and damages have to be properly applied, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The deceased was admittedly an advocate practised for about 11 years. According to P.W.1/wife, the deceased was earning about Rs.3,0000 per month. The tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.2,000 and after deducting Rs.750 towards personal expenses of the deceased, assessed the monthly dependency at Rs.1,250. On the basis of the said amount, the tribunal by adopting the multiplier of 20 years, has calculated and fixed the amount of Rs.3,00,000 as compensation. 14. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed Rs.5,00,000 as a consolidated amount. The tribunal, admittedly, has not taken into consideration the other important heads, namely, loss or consortium, loss of love and affection etc., even though the calculation was made only by taking into account the head, namely, loss of income. 15. 14. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed Rs.5,00,000 as a consolidated amount. The tribunal, admittedly, has not taken into consideration the other important heads, namely, loss or consortium, loss of love and affection etc., even though the calculation was made only by taking into account the head, namely, loss of income. 15. The deceased, who put in practice for about 11 years, could have easily earned about Rs.3,000 per month, as stated by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. Merely because there is no documentary evidence available, the said evidence cannot be rejected. However, the tribunal fixed at Rs.2,000 as monthly income without any material on record. 16. As already indicated, the deceased was a young man of 38 years and sufficiently experienced and but for the accident, he would have certainly got prosperous future also. Therefore, the loss of income has to be estimated taking into account the future prospects as well. 17. According to the decided cases by this Court in Alagammal v. Marudhu Pandian Transport Corporation , 1997 A.C.J. 1323, Tamil Nadu Electrictiy Board and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporatuion v. Susamma Thomas , 1994 A.C.J. 1 while fixing the compensation the chances for future prospectus shall be taken into account. 18. In my view, fixing meager amount as a monthly income without any materials for the same, especially when P.W.1, the wife of the deceased would assert that the deceased was earning about Rs.3,000 per month is not proper. Therefore, if the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into account, then we have no difficulty in fixing the monthly dependency at Rs.2,000. 19. In the instant case, the multiplier of 20 has been adopted. It may not be appropriate, as per the guidelines given by the Apex Court. According to the schedule, 16 years would be a proper multiplier. If 16 is adopted as multiplier and the monthly dependency is fixed at Rs,2,000. then the total amount would come to Rs.3,84,000. 20. As stated earlier, there are no amounts apportioned towards the loss of consortium to the wife, who is a young widow and towards the loss of love and affection to the two children and other heads towards funeral expenses and loss of expectation of life. 21. Accepting the contention of the cross-objectors. 20. As stated earlier, there are no amounts apportioned towards the loss of consortium to the wife, who is a young widow and towards the loss of love and affection to the two children and other heads towards funeral expenses and loss of expectation of life. 21. Accepting the contention of the cross-objectors. in view of the discussion made above, the award of the tribunal is modified and compensation for each head is fixed in the following manner: (a) towards loss of dependency Rs.3,84,000.00 (b) towards loss of consortium Rs. 15,000.00 (c) towards loss of love and affectionRs. 15,000.00 (d) towards funeral expenses. Rs. 6,000.00 (e) towards loss of expectation of lifeRs. 20,000.00 ---------------- Total Rs.4,40,000.00 ---------------- 22. Therefore, there shall be an award for a sum of Rs.4,40,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Out of this amount, the claimants/cross-objectors 1 to 3 are entitled to 75% and the parents/cross-objectors 4 and 5 are entitled to 25% as ordered earlier by the tribunal. 23. With the above observations, the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of. No costs.