Judgment :- Being aggrieved with the award of compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- for the death of Chinnadurai [M.C.O.P.No.168/1997] and Rs.1,00,000/- of the personal injuries sustained by the claimant Amsaveni [M.C.O.P.No.183/1997], State Transport Corporation has preferred these appeals. 2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows :- On 210. 1996 the deceased Chinnadurai was driving bike from Samarayapatti to Udumalpet with his wife as pillion rider. When he was nearing S.V.Puram bus stop, he overtook STC bus bearing Registration No.TCB 1411. At that time, the said STC bus driver suddenly turned the bus to the right side in a negligent manner without sounding horn and dashed against the bike driven by the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased and his wife were knocked down and the back wheel of the bus run over the deceased and Chinnadurai died on the spot. Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.183/1997 – Amsaveni wife of deceased sustained grievous injuries on her head and legs. The deceased was working as Head Constable at Udumalpet Police Station at the time of accident and he was earning salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, wife and children of Chinnadurai have filed Petition under Sec.166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 3. For the injuries sustained by her, Amsaveni – wife of deceased, filed Petition under Sec.166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for he injuries sustained by her. 4. Opposing the claims, STC has filed counter stating that the driver stopped the bus at Vaikalpalam Bus Stop for alighting the passengers and then the bus driver started the bus at a slow speed. When the bus was nearing S.V.Puram stop, the bike, which tried to overtake the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the bus and the rider of the motorcycle and pillion rider fell down in the front side and right side wheel ran over the motorcycle. Rider of the motorcycle cycle died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. According to the STC, only the deceased was rash and negligent in driving the motor cycle and the accident was due to his negligence and therefore, STC is not liable to pay any compensation. Rider of the motorcycle cycle died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. According to the STC, only the deceased was rash and negligent in driving the motor cycle and the accident was due to his negligence and therefore, STC is not liable to pay any compensation. STC has also disputed the age and income of the deceased and loss of dependency of the claimants as well as the injured claimant and loss of dependency, percentage of disability. 5. First claimant was examined twice as PW-1 and PW-2. Dr.Prakash was examined as PW-3. Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On the side of respondents, the driver was examined as RW-1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and observing that the evidence of PW-1 is acceptable, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and held STC liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Taking the monthly income of the deceased Chinnadurai as Rs.3,000/-, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenses and fixed the monthly contribution as Rs.2,000/-. Applying multiplier 13, Tribunal has calculated loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. Adding conventional damages, i.e. Rs.3,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for loss of consortium, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/-. 6. Based upon percentage of disability assessed by PW-3, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the fracture injury sustained by the claimant on her right leg. 7. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the Appellant/ STC has submitted that only the deceased had overtaken the STC bus and the accident was due to the lack of care on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and while so, the Tribunal erred in finding that the bus driver was responsible for the accident. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the deceased was aged 48 years and by applying multiplier 13, the Tribunal appears to have given entire life span to the deceased and the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% is very much on the higher side and the same is to be reduced to 9%. 9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% is very much on the higher side and the same is to be reduced to 9%. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased Chinnadurai was working as Head Constable and he was getting more than Rs.4,500 p.m. and while so, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income only at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. and after deducting for personal expenses, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.2,000/- as monthly income which is very much on the lower side. The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants further submitted that the Tribunal has not kept in view the future prospects of the deceased who had chances of getting himself promoted in the Uniformed Services. Insofar as the injuries sustained by the claimant, it was submitted that the claimant has sustained fracture injury in her right ankle and she sustained 39% disability and the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.1,00,000/-is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with. 10. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts as to how the accident has occurred, who was responsible and who was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. It is for the reason that the Tribunal has recorded the findings on the above aspects in favour of the claimant. Secondly, those findings of the Tribunal are not under challenge. 11. The deceased Chinnadurai was working as Head Constable and he was aged 48 years at the time of accident. In her evidence, PW-1 has stated that her husband was getting Rs.4,000/- p.m. and that he was contributing the entire amount to the family. But the Tribunal had taken the monthly salary at Rs.3,000/-and held that the deceased would have contributed Rs.2,000/-to the family and calculated the annual loss of dependency at Rs.24,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of accident, Tribunal has chosen the multiplier 13 and calculated total loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. The deceased being aged 48 years, by adopting multiplier 13, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal appears to have given the entire life span to the deceased and appears to have calculated the loss of dependency. Merely because the Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplier, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. 12. Merely because the Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplier, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. 12. Admittedly, the deceased was employed as Head Constable at the time of accident. He had better future prospects of salary increase and further promotions. It is clearly well settled that future prospects of the deceased has to be kept in view to adopt the multiplicand and proper multiplier to claimants income, and award compensation. Since the Tribunal has taken the monthly contribution at a low amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m., the loss of dependency calculated at Rs.3,12,000/-cannot be said to be on the higher side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- awarded is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with. 13. In the same accident, claimant Amsaveni who travelled as pillion rider, sustained fracture in the right leg and she had three sittings of operation by Ortho and she underwent plastic surgery. She had also taken treatment in a private hospital for 2½ months. In her evidence, the claimant had stated that even after treatment, she is not in a position to walk and that she has difficulty in walking and standing and she is not in a position to carry on her normal work. 14. Claimant had produced Exs.P-10 and P-11, Medical Bills and had also produced the discharge summary. PW-3 – Dr.Prakash, who examined the claimant Amsaveni had assessed the permanent disability at 39%. In his evidence, PW-3 has stated that the claimant has pain and suffering even while walking and that she has difficulty in walking. PW-3 has noticed oozing of pus from both bones of leg bone of left leg and that she needs continued treatment. PW-3 has assessed the permanent disability at 39%. 15. Though the claimant had produced medical bills and discharge summary, the Tribunal has not itemized the award, nor the Tribunal has awarded any compensation for pain and suffering. To ensure transparency, it is always desirable that the Tribunals are to award compensation by itemizing the award. In 2006 (4) CTC 433 (Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Ahmed Thambi), the Full Bench of this Court observing that the Tribunal has to pass just compensation and to ensure transparency in passing of awards it is desirable that the Courts should itemise the award, has held as under: "19. In 2006 (4) CTC 433 (Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited v. Ahmed Thambi), the Full Bench of this Court observing that the Tribunal has to pass just compensation and to ensure transparency in passing of awards it is desirable that the Courts should itemise the award, has held as under: "19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the Tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and non¬pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the Tribunal shall consider: (a) pain and suffering, (b) loss of amenity, (c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc., (d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary losses, the Tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the non¬pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised." 16. The Tribunal has awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant – for pain and suffering, permanent disability, extra nourishment. The quantum of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal appears to be very much on the lower side. However, in the absence of any separate appeal filed by the injured claimant, the same cannot be interfered with. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is in fact, very much on the lower side and the same cannot be interfered with. 17. In both the appeals, Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12%. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding higher rate of interest @ 12% p.a. The interest awarded at the rate of 12% is reduced to 9% from the date of Petition as per the decision of the Supreme Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Today 5 (Kaushnuma Begum & Others v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.). 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that in respect of death of Chinnadurai, the Tribunal has awarded very low amount of compensation for loss of consortium. Ltd.). 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that in respect of death of Chinnadurai, the Tribunal has awarded very low amount of compensation for loss of consortium. No amount was awarded for loss of love and affection to the son and daughter of Chinnadurai. Likewise, in the case of injury sustained by the claimant Amsaveni, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation for pain and suffering, extra nourishment and loss of amenities etc. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to maintain interest @ 12% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. 19. In the result, C.M.A.No.330/2002 filed against the order dated 23.02.2000 passed in M.C.O.P.No.168/1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udumalpet is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. No costs. 20. C.M.A.No.331/2002 filed against the order dated 23.02.2000 passed in M.C.O.P.No.183/1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udumalpet is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. No costs. 21. In both the Petitions, claimants have withdrawn the entire amount deposited by the appellant Corporation. If they had not withdrawn any part of the amount, they are permitted to withdraw the same.