Judgment :- The appellants/petitioners have filed the above civil miscellaneous appeal No.1542 of 2005 against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Small Causes Court Judge) in MACTOP No.3933 of 2001 awarding a total compensation of Rs.7,22,480/-together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MACTOP No.3933 of 2001, the appellants/petitioners have filed this appeal to enhance the compensation from Rs.7,22,480/- to Rs.14,00,000/-, which was claimed by the claimant originally before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Small Cause Court Judge) Chennai. 3. The short facts of the case in as follows;- On 30.11.2000 at about 20.10 hours, the deceased was walking along Chakrapani Street, Guindy, Chennai-32, in a east to west direction. While he was so waking near Durga Sweet stall, the MTC Bus bearing registration No.TN-01-BN-2506 (Route No.B-10), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, came from behind and dashed against the deceased in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he died on the spot. The petitioners submit that the accident is solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the MTC Bus TN-01-N-2506. Hence, the respondent as owner of the Bus is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the petitioners being the sole surviving legal heirs and dependants of the deceased, with interest and costs. The said accident was registered by the Traffic Investigation Officer attached to the J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai-32, who registered a criminal case in Cr.No.660/S-3/2000, dated 30.11.2000. The first claimant is Mrs.Valli, who is the wife of the deceased, Manoharan and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor son and minor daughter of the deceased Manoharan. The fourth and fifth claimants are the parents of the deceased. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 32 years and he was an employee in the Chennai Metrowater and Sewerage Board. 4. The Respondent/State Transport Corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that on 30.11.2000, the bus route No.B-10 bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2506 started its trip from Egmore to Puzhuthivakkam at 18.30 hours. 4. The Respondent/State Transport Corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that on 30.11.2000, the bus route No.B-10 bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2506 started its trip from Egmore to Puzhuthivakkam at 18.30 hours. When the bus was nearing Chakrapani Steet, next to Maduvankarai bus stop, the deceased got down from the running bus in a hurried manner and he lost his balance and fell when he rested his feet at a slanting sandpit and thus, caused the accident. The respondent further alleged that the said accident happened solely due to the negligence and carelessness of the deceased Manoharan. Further, the respondent alleged that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Further, the respondent does not admit the age, occupation and income of the deceased Manoharan. 5. On the side of the appellants/claimants, three witnesses were examined namely PW1, Mrs.Valli, PW2-one Mr.Ramesh, an independent witness and PW3-one Mr.Babu Manoharan, was examined on the side of the employer of the deceased, Manoharan. Six exhibits were marked on the claimants side as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 namely 1) First Information Report, 2) Rough sketch, 3)Charge sheet, 4) Postmortem certificate, 5) Legal heirship certificate and 6) copy of employment and salary particulars. On the side of the respondent RW-1 the driver of the bus was examined along with another person and Ex.R1 was marked as investigation report. 6. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge framed three issues namely, 1) Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2506? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? and 3) To What relief are they entitled to? 7. The claimants side were examined as PW1 to PW3, PW2 is the eyewitness, who witnessed the accident on 30.11.2000 at about 08.00 p.m. PW2 stated that the deceased was proceeding at Maduvankarai, Chakrapani road at Guindy. At that time, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N-2506 drove the bus from east to west in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian and caused accident. Further, PW2 stated that the wheel of the bus ran over the pedestrian and he died on the spot. PW2 also deposed evidence before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court regarding the accident. 8. RW1, the driver of the bus was examined. Further, PW2 stated that the wheel of the bus ran over the pedestrian and he died on the spot. PW2 also deposed evidence before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court regarding the accident. 8. RW1, the driver of the bus was examined. He stated in his evidence that the deceased was travelling in the front foot board of the bus. At the time of accident, the deceased attempted to get down from the front foot board, slipped down and sustained simple injury in his leg. He was admitted in a private hospital and subsequently RW1, driver of the bus informed about the accident to the Police Station and also his higher authorities. In the cross-examination, the driver stated that he drove the vehicle at a speed of 20 km/hr. On a perusal of EX.P1, i.e. the first information report, registered on the report given by an eyewitness by name N.S. Mohan, it has been alleged that the deceased was proceeding, at the time of accident and the driver of the above bus drove the vehicle with speed and in a negligent manner in the same direction and dashed against the pedestrian and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over the hip of the deceased and he died on the spot. Further, as per first information report, the complaint was not lodged by the driver of the bus. Criminal case was also filed in C.C.No.1332 of 2001 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The result of the criminal case proceeding has not been produced by the driver of the bus. As per evidence of RW2, the investigator of the respondent corporation, he deposed that the deceased attempted to get down from the bus and hence caused the accident. RW1 and RW2 are interested witnesses. As per the site plan drawn by RW2, it is mentioned that near the site of accident, there is a pit in the road but as per the site plan drawn by the police, this is not mentioned. 9. Considering the evidence of both sides, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident happened due to the driver of the bus. After this conclusion, the Tribunal decided the quantum of compensation, on the basis of evidence, as under;- PW1, is the first claimant and she was examined. She has also produced legal heir certificate as Ex.P5. After this conclusion, the Tribunal decided the quantum of compensation, on the basis of evidence, as under;- PW1, is the first claimant and she was examined. She has also produced legal heir certificate as Ex.P5. PW1 further stated that her husband, deceased Manoharan was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and he was employed as Sweeper in the Metrowater Corporation, Chennai. His monthly salary was Rs.4,654/- confirming his employment, PW3, employer was examined and he stated that the deceased had joined as sweeper on 011. 1997, and he was born on 10.09.1968. As per his evidence, the deceased was paid a monthly salary of Rs.4,600/-on the date of the accident and he was about to retire on 30.09.2028. By that time, he would have been promoted as Special Grade Sweeper and his further salary would have been Rs.8000/- per month. The employment particulars were marked as Ex.P6. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was not entitled for any promotion. But, however, the deceased was having future service for about 28 years. As per the service rules, he would have been sanctioned Selection Grade after 10 years of service, Special Grade after 20 years of service. As per the Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court, Madras, in the case of Union of India represented by its Commanding Officer, Military Police, Fort Saint George, Madras v. Susheela and five others, (2003 LW (263), it has been pointed out that the future prospects and future income of the deceased can also be considered to fix the dependency of the claimants. As per the evidence of PW3, the deceased was receiving Rs.4,600/-per month. The future salary would have been Rs.8,000/- per month. On the date of accident, he has completed a service of 3 years and 29 days. He was under stable employment. The deduction of P.F. contribution has not been mentioned in Ex.P6. It will be reasonable to deduct Rs.1000/- and his net salary arrived at is Rs.3600/-. In the future salary of Rs.8000, Rs.1500/- is deducted for compulsory deductions and the future net salary is taken as Rs.8000 - 1500 = Rs.6500 per month. The average of present and future salary is Rs.3600+6500/2 = 10100/2 = Rs.5050/-. In the above salary, 1/3rd is deducted i.e. Rs.1683 rounded to Rs.1680/-, towards personal expenses of the deceased and the monthly dependency is arrived at Rs.3370/-. 10. The average of present and future salary is Rs.3600+6500/2 = 10100/2 = Rs.5050/-. In the above salary, 1/3rd is deducted i.e. Rs.1683 rounded to Rs.1680/-, towards personal expenses of the deceased and the monthly dependency is arrived at Rs.3370/-. 10. The deceased was aged about 32 years and hence as per second schedule, the multiplier of 17 is adopted, and the loss of income towards dependency is Rs.3370X12X17= Rs.6,87,480. The first claimant is aged about 28 years. Hence, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/-for loss of consortium. Considering the young age of the deceased, Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of expectation of life. The deceased has left behind his widow, two minor children and aged mother and hence Rs.10,000/-has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In total Rs.7,22,408/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased Manoharan. 11. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal further ordered that the claim amount passed in favour of petitioners 1 to 4 is to be deposited by the respondent/State Transport Corporation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 20.12.2000 to the date of deposit of the compensation amount (excluding the period of the dismissal for default, if any) with proportionate cost and the same should be deposited within a period of two months. The Tribunal further apportioned compensation as under;- 1) The first petitioner is entitled to get 30%, the second and third petitioners are entitled to get 25% each and the fourth petitioner is entitled to get 20% with accrued interest. The first and fourth petitioners are each entitled to receive the entire accrued interest and cost of their share amount respectively at the first instance for family expenses and the first petitioner is entitled to receive the entire accrued interest and cost of the minor petitioners 2 and 3 and share amount for the maintenance of minor petitioners. At the first instance, the share of the petitioners 1 to 4 will be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. At the first instance, the share of the petitioners 1 to 4 will be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. The share amount of the minor petitioners 2 and 3 shall be deposited in a nationalised bank, till the minor attains majority, in fixed deposit and the first petitioner is also permitted to receive the accrued interest of the minor petitioners share amount once in three months directly from the bank. The excess of Court fee shall be returned to the petitioners. The Tribunal fixed the advocate fee as Rs.14,225/-. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunals deduction of the provident fund is compulsory deduction of Rs.1,000/-from the salary of the deceased i.e. Rs.4,654/- and its conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,600/-is not correct. The deduction towards provident fund and other compulsory deductions are save up towards the account of the deceased. As such the deduction is incorrect. The learned appellants counsel further submitted that in the contribution made by the employee towards provident fund, the employer also contributes the same amount to the employees account and as such the deduction of the employees contribution is also incorrect. The remaining service for the deceased was 28 years. At the time of superannuation, the salary of Rs.8000/-fixed is very low. His salary would have been Rs.12,000/- at the time of superannuation. So, the fixing of the salary of the deceased, for the future, at Rs.8,000/- is on the lower side and also deducted Rs.1500 towards contribution to provident fund is also incorrect. Further the appellant counsel pointed out that the first appellant was only 28 years old at the time of accident and the award amount claimed was Rs.40,000/-, but the tribunal awarded compensation Rs.10,000/-only towards loss of consortium, which is very low. Further the deceased has left the widow, two minor children and aged mother and he was the only earning member in the family and supporting the family. However, the tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-for loss of companionship to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.60,000/- and it is on the lower side. Further, the learned Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.10000/-for loss of expectation of life as against the claim of Rs.40,000/-is on the lower side. However, the tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-for loss of companionship to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.60,000/- and it is on the lower side. Further, the learned Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.10000/-for loss of expectation of life as against the claim of Rs.40,000/-is on the lower side. Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is also on the lower side as the amount claimed was Rs.15,000/- 13. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. Further, the Tribunal after considering the salary of deceased, age of deceased and dependency of deceased and future prospects of the deceased, has properly calculated and awarded the compensation on the mentioned heads in the judgment. Further the award passed by the Tribunal is fair and equitable. 14. This Court considered the claim petition filed by the claimants and claim of compensation of Rs.14 lakhs under five heads. The same was resisted by the respondent transport corporation by way of counter statement. Further, the Court after considering the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and grounds of appeal and arguments of the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for the respondent, is of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has decided the negligence point as against the driver of the Transport Corporation bus on the basis of the evidence of PW2, one Ramesh, who was the eyewitness and an independent witness. He narrated the manner of the accident. Further, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion on the basis of charge sheet and the first information report, that the criminal case has been filed against the driver of the bus for his rash and negligent driving. Further, the Tribunal has confirmed the negligence on the basis of the investigation report and sketch of the Police Traffic Investigation Officer. In this conclusion of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, i.e. Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai, this Court affirms his view. Following this view, the Tribunal awarded the compensation on the below mentioned heads;- 1) For loss of earning; Rs.6,87,480/-. This was calculated on the basis of deceased age at 32 years as per employment certificate and income of the deceased as Rs.3,370/-which was calculated on the basis of the deceased income at the time of accident and future income on the basis of natural employment. This was calculated on the basis of deceased age at 32 years as per employment certificate and income of the deceased as Rs.3,370/-which was calculated on the basis of the deceased income at the time of accident and future income on the basis of natural employment. He has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased is Rs.3370 after deducting personal expenses of deceased. This was multiplied by 17 as per 2nd schedule of the Act and thus the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,87,480/- for loss of income. There is no discrepancy in the said calculation of the Tribunal. ii) The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses, but the claimant claimed Rs.15,000/-. The Court feels that funeral expenses has to be awarded as claimed by the claimant. Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses. iii)The first petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. At the time of accident, the first claimant, wife of deceased was only 28 years. At an young age, she has become a widow and thus lost conjugal relationship with her husband. Considering this aspect, the Court awards a total consortium of Rs.40,000/- which was claimed by the first petitioner. iv) For loss of companionship to petitioners, the claimants have claimed Rs.60,000/-. Considering the second and third minor children of the deceased, aged about 3 years and one year respectively and aged parents who are 60 and 65 years respectively and young widow of the deceased aged about 28 years, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.40,000 to the petitioners. v) For loss of expectation of life, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.40,000/-but the tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/-. This Court grants the award at Rs.30,000/-under this head. In total a sum of Rs.8,12,480/-is awarded by this Court i.e. this Court has enhanced the earlier award amount by Rs.90,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- has been apportioned to the claimants as under;- The first petitioner is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- The second and third petitioners are entitled to get Rs.20,000/- each The fourth petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- 15. Regarding grounds raised by appellants counsel towards PF Contribution and employer contribution, this Court opines that these factors are not taken into consideration for arriving at compensation awarded. Regarding grounds raised by appellants counsel towards PF Contribution and employer contribution, this Court opines that these factors are not taken into consideration for arriving at compensation awarded. It is only the net salary which is taken into account for computing loss of earnings and as such the grounds raised by appellants counsel in this regard is not maintainable. 16. The rate of interest for the enhanced amount of Rs.90,000/-is 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation amount (excluding the interest for the period of the dismissal for default, if any). The Court directs the respondent/Transport Corporation to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.90,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order into the credit of MCOP No.3933 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. The first and fourth petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective apportioned compensation, as per award of the Tribunal and as enhanced by this Court, since the accident happened in the year 2000. The second and third petitioners, compensation amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, and as enhanced by this Court, should be deposited in a nationalised bank till they become majors. The first petitioner, being mother and natural guardian of second and third petitioner is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in six months. The Court permits the petitioners to get the excess Court fee paid. Accordingly, the above appeal is partly allowed with the above terms. Consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Tribunal/Chief Small Cause Court Judge, Chennai in MCOP NO.3933 of 2005 is modified. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.