Judgment :- This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the award dated 02.02.2000 made in MCOP No.213 of 1996 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, [Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai]. 2.On 25.07.1994 at about 16.00 hours the deceased was proceeding on cycle in Pallavan salai from South to North direction. One heavy Motor lorry bearing Registration No.86-D-6434 belonging to the Ministry of Defence, the first respondent herein which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner from South to North direction, turned suddenly towards West direction and dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and he was taken to hospital and despite treatment, he died. The claimants are the wife, two sons and mother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-as compensation. The respondents resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1.Whether the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the respondent or not? 2.What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Heavy Motor Lorry belonging to the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.86,4000/-with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that order, both claimants as well as the first respondent/Ministry of Defence filed the civil miscellaneous appeals. It is relevant to state that the respondent preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal in CMA No.871/2001 challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. The said matter came before the Court and the Court dismissed the appeal on 24.07.2001 preferred on 24.07.2001by the Union of India, the first respondent herein. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award for enhancement. 3.Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only meager amount as compensation as against Rs.3,20,000/-as claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have granted more compensation. It is therefore submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and also it is a fit case for enhancement. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have granted more compensation. It is therefore submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and also it is a fit case for enhancement. 4.Learned counsel for the Union of India/Ministry of Defence, the first respondent herein submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed and also relied on the earlier order in CMA.No.871 of 2001 dated 24.07.2001 as stated earlier, wherein it was held that there was no illegality or reasonableness in the approach of the Tribunal. 5.Heard both sides. On behalf of the claimants,P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. P.W.1-Mohammed Asam is the son of the deceased. P.W.2-Iruthaya Raj is an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.3 is the Doctor J.R.R.Thiyagarajan. The claimants also marked documents Exs.P1 to P13, which are as follows: Ex.1 - Xerox copy of the FIR Ex.2 - Xerox copies of Medical records and reports issued by the G.H., Chennai. Ex.3 - Xerox copy of the rough sketch Ex.4 - Xerox copy of discharge summary issued by Shri Rama chandra Medical College, Hospital, Chennai. Ex.5 - Medical Bills Ex.6 - Blood Test Report Ex.7 - Medical Bill Ex.8 - Prescriptions of Dr.Chandrasekaran Ex.9 - National Scheme for in service training for school teacher attendance certificate in 1989 for 10 days 04.08.89 to 13.089. Ex.10 - Death certificate issued by Chennai Corporation Ex.11 - Legal Heir certificate Ex.12 - Jewels loan receipts and cards Ex.13 - Medical report given by P.W.3 On behalf of the first respondent, Union of India, R.W.1-Anbarasan, who is the driver of the vehicle and the second respondent herein was examined. No document was marked by the 1st respondent to support their claim. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent/driver. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.86,400/-as compensation with interest of 12% per annum. The deceased was aged 59 years old at the time of accident. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent/driver. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.86,400/-as compensation with interest of 12% per annum. The deceased was aged 59 years old at the time of accident. He was a retired Secondary School teacher working in the Corporation School, Chennai and he was receiving pension of Rs.1,900/- per month and further he was earning Rs.2,000/-per month by way of giving private tuition in Tamil and Maths to students. The deceased sustained injuries and admitted in Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute on 011. 1994 and inspite of treatment, he died on 112. 1994. PW1 is the son of the deceased and P.W.3 the doctor, had given the medical report, Ex.13, in respect of the injuries sustained by the deceased. After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.86,400/-, the details regarding the same are as under:- Loss of dependancy - Rs.60,000/- Funeral Expenses - Rs. 2,000/- Medical Expenses - Rs.11,000/- Transport charges - Rs. 2,000/- Mental Agony - Rs.10,000/- Extra Nourishment - Rs. 1,000/- Damages to cloth - Rs. 150/- Damages to cycle - Rs. 250/- Total - Rs.86,400/- 6. The Tribunal awarded the above amount with interest of 12% per annum. The only dispute involved in the present case is that the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation towards Loss of Dependancy. The Tribunal has fixed Rs.1,500/-as the monthly income of the deceased. Out of the said amount, 1/3 of the amount, i.e., Rs.500/- was deducted towards personal expenditure and the balance amount of Rs.1,000/- that would have been contributed by the deceased to his family and the Tribunal has fixed the annual income at Rs.12,000/-and adopted the multiplier of 5, and computed the loss of dependancy at Rs.60,000/-[Rs.12,000x5]. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants vehimently contended that the deceased was getting pension as well as income from the teaching students privately. Even though, no document was produced to substantiate that claim, the Tribunal ought to have determined the monthly income of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,500/-. Further the learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2005 ACJ 65 (CHAMPABAI AND OTHERS VS. Even though, no document was produced to substantiate that claim, the Tribunal ought to have determined the monthly income of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,500/-. Further the learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2005 ACJ 65 (CHAMPABAI AND OTHERS VS. BAJPAI ROAD LINES AND OTHERS), wherein in paragraph 3, it has held as follows: "... 3.It is not disputed before us that deceased died on account of road accident which took place on 31.07.1996 while he was travelling in a M.P.S.R.T.C. Bus from Dhamnod to Indore, a truck bearing the registration No.MP-K 7479 collided with the bus. The deceased was highly qualified person and he had B.Ed., and M.Phil. Degrees. From the evidence, it is clear that he used to teach Sanskrit to students. Thus, it can be safely held that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-." The fact that the deceased was getting monthly pension and also earning by taking tuition, could not be ignored. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3900/- per month from pension as well as private tuition, the Tribunal disregard the whole factor. Following the Madhya Pradesh judgment cited above, it would be reasonable and appropriate to fix Rs.2,000/- as monthly income as against Rs.1,500/- fixed by the Tribunal. Out of the said amount, if 1/3rd, i.e., Rs.666/- is deducted towards personal expenses, the balance i.e., Rs.1,334/- would be the amount the deceased would have contributed to his family and the annual income fixed at Rs.16,008/- [Rs.1,334x12], rounded off to Rs.16,000/-. If multiplier 5 is adopted, the loss of dependancy works out to Rs.80,000/- as against the amount of Rs.60,000/-. The claimant is entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of dependancy. In so far as the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal are concerned, there is no dispute regarding the same and hence, they are confirmed. The claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.80,000 – 60,000) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 7.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that this Court earlier passed an order confirming the order of the Tribunal in CMA No.871 of 2001 dated 24.07.2001 and therefore the matter is concluded and in view of the same, the claimants are not entitled to any enhanced amount. 7.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that this Court earlier passed an order confirming the order of the Tribunal in CMA No.871 of 2001 dated 24.07.2001 and therefore the matter is concluded and in view of the same, the claimants are not entitled to any enhanced amount. The said earlier CMA, which was filed by the first respondent was dismissed at the admission stage itself. At that time the present CMA filed by the claimants was pending. When the earlier CMA was taken up for admission, the first respondent ought to have brought to the notice of this Court about the pendency of the present CMA and also the fact that the earlier CMA was dismissed at the admission stage itself. It is therefore, the dismissal of the earlier CMA would not have any bearing in the present CMA. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the issue is covered by the earlier CMA is rejected. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The first respondent/Union of India is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/-with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 8.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.