Judgment :- (JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY M.VENUGOPAL, J) 1. The Appellant / Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Award dated 21.03.2007 in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2005 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District. 2. The Tribunal / Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District in the Award dated 21.03.2007 in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2005 has resultantly awarded a compensation of Rs.12,95,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable by the Appellant / Insurance Company to the Respondents 1 to 5 / Claimants 1 to 5. 3. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Tribunal / Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2005 dated 21.03.2007 the Appellant / Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / Insurance Company, the Award passed by the Tribunal is against law, facts and evidence on record of the case and as a matter of fact, the Tribunal should have held that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased Vaiyapuri and the Claim Application ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle as necessary parties. 5. It is the further contention on behalf of the Appellant / Insurance Company that the Tribunal had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Driver of the vehicle in TN-24-Z-1739 was responsible for the rash and negligent driving based upon the evidence of PW-2 K.Rangasamy, Head Constable of the Dharmapuri Town Police station, where the deceased worked as a Constable. In any event, the compensation of Rs.12,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was an excessive and exorbitant one. Therefore, the Appellant / Insurance Company prays for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to promote substantial cause of Justice. 6. Though on the side of the Appellant, the manner of happening of the occurrence was disputed the stand taken by the Appellant was that the First Respondent / Driver was not responsible for the accident. Therefore, the Appellant / Insurance Company prays for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to promote substantial cause of Justice. 6. Though on the side of the Appellant, the manner of happening of the occurrence was disputed the stand taken by the Appellant was that the First Respondent / Driver was not responsible for the accident. However, on going through the evidence of PW-2 and also on the basis of Ex.P-1, First Information Report dated 19.03.2005 which was registered against the First Respondent / Driver in Crime No.72 of 2005 by the Hosur Traffic Police, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, we come to an inevitable conclusion that the First Respondent / Driver had not taken note of the signal given by PW-2 Head Constable and drove his two wheeler / Bajaj Pulsar TN-24-Z-1739 in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle and dashed against the deceased Vaiyapuri, as a result of which, the accident had occurred. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the First Respondent / Driver of the two wheeler namely, TN-24-Z-1739 was responsible for the happening of the occurrence. 7. Coming to the issue of quantum of compensation to be awarded in the present case, it is to be pointed out that the Respondents 1 to 5 / Claimants 1 to 5 had claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Vaiyapuri. The Respondents 1 to 5 / Claimants 1 to 5 are the wife, son, daughter, and parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of occurrence. He was employed as Head Constable in Hudco Police Station, Hosur. On the date of accident he was riding a Bullet Motor Cycle from Hosur Hudco Police Station. At the time of his untimely death, he had 17 years of service in the Department. It was also represented that the deceased Vaiyapuri was promoted as Head Constable and worked in that post for three years, prior to the date of accident. Had he continued in service, but for the untimely death, certainly he would have been promoted as a Sub-Inspector and later as a Circle Inspector in his career before his retirement as spoken to by PW-3 in his evidence. Also there was a possibility of his scale of pay being revised and refixed. Had he continued in service, but for the untimely death, certainly he would have been promoted as a Sub-Inspector and later as a Circle Inspector in his career before his retirement as spoken to by PW-3 in his evidence. Also there was a possibility of his scale of pay being revised and refixed. At the time of his death, he was receiving a salary of Rs.7,910/- as per evidence of PW-1/wife. He was also possessed of 6 Acres of Lands in his village. 8. The Tribunal upon appreciation oral and documentary evidence had awarded a total sum of Rs.12,95,000/-. It had taken into account the salary of deceased Vaiyapuri as per Ex.P-6 salary certificate at Rs.8,280/-. Moreover, the Tribunal had determined the income as Rs.10,000/- per month and it had calculated a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-per year (Rs.10,000 x 12 = 1,20,000), based on the fact that had he been alive he would have been promoted and attained higher position in life. From the said sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd sum of Rs.40,000/- towards his personal expenses and arrived at a sum of Rs.80,000/-per annum (Rs.1,20,000–40,000=80,000) towards Loss of Dependency. 9. Taking into consideration of the fact that the age of the deceased at the time of his side was 42 years, the Tribunal had adopted a Multiplier of 15 and had arrived the loss of income at Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs.80,000x15). The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards Pain and Suffering, to the First Respondent / Wife. It also granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents towards Mental Agony, for the 4th and 5th respondents towards Mental Suffering a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Also, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. Thus, in all, a total compensation of Rs.12,95,000/- for the death of the deceased Vaiyapuri was awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Taking into account of the fact that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of his death and since he worked as Head Constable in Hudco Police Station, Hosur and was receiving a salary of Rs.8,280/- as per Ex.P-6, by efflux of time in the remaining 16 years of service also he would have legitimately reached a higher position in his carrier either as Sub-Inspector of Police or as an Inspector of Police. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to determine his monthly salary at Rs.9,000/- per month which works out to Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. If we deduct a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards his personal expenses then the balance works out to Rs.72,000/- per annum. Since the deceased aged 42 years, proper Multiplier of 15 is adopted and loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.10,80,000/-. Towards lost of consortium taking into account of the fact that the first respondent / first petitioner was a wife, we award a fair sum of Rs.15,000/-in this regard. Towards loss of love and affection we award Rs.15,000/-. Towards Funeral Expenses we award a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, we award a total sum of Rs.11,15,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased Vaiyapuri to the respondents 1 to 5 / claimants. 11. As per the order in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in C.M.A.No.2915 of 2007 dated 21.11.2007, the appellant / 2nd respondent has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. All the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them in the same ratio of apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal. The appellant / Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the excess compensation amount, if any deposited by them to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2005 dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Hosur, Dharmapuri District. 12. In the result, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.11,15,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only) payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate cost. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.