Judgment :- M. Venugopal, J. The Appellant/Second Respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 28.04.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.4973 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal viz., II Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal in the original Claim Petition had passed an Award on 28.04.2004 awarding a total compensation of Rs.24,65,668/- together with interest at 9% per annum from 07.08.2000 to 28.04.2004 with costs to the Respondents/Claimants 1 and 2 and directed the Appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the same within two months from the date of passing of the order. 3. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Tribunal, the Appellant/Insurance Company (Second Respondent) has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. 4. Before the Tribunal, a common Award was passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.4973/2001, 4561/2000 and 4554/2000. However, in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, we concerned with M.C.O.P.No.4973/2001. A common evidence was taken and witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P27 were marked in the aforesaid M.C.O.P. case. 5. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal had erred in fastening the negligence on the driver of the Third Respondent/First Respondent and in fact, the Tribunal was wrong in placing reliance on Ex.A7 Letter of appointment of the deceased son S.M.Amjath Khan Arabu. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company that Ex.A7 Appointment Letter as Executive Consultant in respect of the deceased son S.M.Amjath Khan Arabu was a fabricated document and there was no material either documentary or oral evidence to corroborate Ex.A7 Letter of Appointment. Also, a plea is put forward on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company that P.W.1 in his evidence had admitted that the salary was increased only from the year June 2000 and this aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the claims Tribunal in a real perspective. 6. Moreover, it is the contention of the Appellant/Insurance Company that no documents were filed before the Tribunal to establish that any income tax was deducted from out of the salary of the deceased. 7. 6. Moreover, it is the contention of the Appellant/Insurance Company that no documents were filed before the Tribunal to establish that any income tax was deducted from out of the salary of the deceased. 7. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal was not correct in assuming that the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu was earning a sum of Rs.18,100/- per month in the absence of any material to prove the salary of the deceased. 8. That apart, the Tribunal was wrong in adopting multiplier 18 especially, when the deceased was a Bachelor at the time of his death and in short, the Award of Rs.24,65,668/- under the caption Loss of Pecuniary Benefits was an excessive and arbitrary one. 9. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 coupled with Ex.P3 First Information Report and Ex.P5 Charge Sheet in and by which in Cr.No.630/00 a case was registered under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of I.P.C. Against the container lorry driver, came to the resultant conclusion that the offending container lorry driver bearing Registration No. TN-01-C-6248 drove the vehicle in a fast speed, rashly and negligently and caused the accident and therefore, he was absolutely responsible for the happening of the occurrence and in this regard, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. 10. In regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Respondents/Claimants being the parents of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu in their Claim Petition had claimed a total compensation of Rs.28,00,000 /-and the break up figures of the same is as follows:- i) Loss of Pecuniary Benefits - Rs. 27,95,000.00 ii) Loss of Estate - Rs.2,500.00 iii) Funeral Expenses - Rs. 2,500.00 Total Rs.28,00,000.00 ---------------------- 11. It is the evidence of P.W.1/First Claimant (Father of the deceased) that his son Amjath Khan Arabu died in an accident at the age of 24 years and on 22.07.2000, his son was travelling along with his friend in the Government bus from Chennai to Chidambaram near Lotpettai and at Maduranthagam near Silavattam Village, a container lorry dashed against the bus, as a result of which, the accident took place. As per the information received by him, when he came to Mathuranthagam hospital, he saw his son dead and his deceased son was an M.B.A. Graduate and he was working in INTEL Comex Management India (P) Ltd. as Business Manager on a monthly salary of Rs.18,100/-. 12. The evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that on 22.07.2000 at about 05.30 p.m., he was travelling in the State Transport bus and after Maduranthagam near Silavattam, the container lorry came from the opposite direction of the bus and dashed against the bus as a result of which, the passenger who was travelling next to him died on the spot and also, 5 more persons died at the spot itself and that the driver of the container lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-C-6248 was responsible for the happening of occurrence. 13. P.W.2 has also deposed that the deceased was sitting on the side of the window while travelling in the bus and that he was seated in the back 8 seats away from the driver seat and the Registration Number of the bus was TN-01-M 6587. 14. The Tribunal by placing reliance on Ex.P8 Salary Certificate dated 08.08.2000 issued by the employer of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu had determined the salary of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu (who was worked as Business Manager since June 1999 in their organisation) as Rs.18,100/-p.m. In the Claim Petition, the Respondents/Claimants had mentioned the age of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu as 24 years. The deceased was a Bachelor at the time of his death. In Ex.P1 Post Mortem Certificate of the deceased son Amjath Khan Arabu, his age was mentioned as 24 years. In the absence of any document other than Ex.P1 Post Mortem Certificate, by placing reliance on Ex.P1 Post Mortem Certificate dated 23.07.2000, this Court fixes the age of the deceased as 24 at the time of his death, arising out of the accident that took place on 22.07.2000. 15. The Tribunal by determining the salary of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu as Rs.18,100/- p.m. had deducted one third sum of Rs.6,033/-towards the deceased personal expenses and the balance works out to Rs.12,067/-which was taken as Loss of Income per month. 15. The Tribunal by determining the salary of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu as Rs.18,100/- p.m. had deducted one third sum of Rs.6,033/-towards the deceased personal expenses and the balance works out to Rs.12,067/-which was taken as Loss of Income per month. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of his death as 24, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 and towards pecuniary loss/Loss of Income, had arrived at a figure of Rs.24,61,668/-(Rs.12,067X 12X17). Towards Loss of Estate, it has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. For Funeral Expenses, it granted a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Thus in all, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.24,65,668/-as total compensation to the Respondents/Claimants for the death of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment, etc., . The break up figure of the sum of Rs.24,65,668/- is mentioned hereunder:- i) Loss of Pecuniary Benefits - Rs. 24,61,668.00 ii) Loss of Estate - Rs. 2,000.00 iii) Funeral Expenses - Rs. 2,000.00 Total Rs.24,65,668.00 16. The Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Claimants contends that the Award of Rs.24,65,668/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, etc., granted by the Tribunal is a fair and reasonable sum and in fact, the Tribunal had taken note of the relevant aspects into consideration while determining the compensation payable by the Appellant/second respondent/Insurance Company and the same need not be interfered by this Court at this stage of the Appeal. 17. The Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/ Claimants 1 and 2 cites the decision of the Honble Supreme Court U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. TRILOK CHANDRA, 1996 (4) SCC (LB) 362, wherein it is observed that Courts can adopt a maximum multiplier upto 18 years. He also relies on the decision of this Court GNANAM SANTHANAM AND OTHERS M/S.SATHYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS, 2004 (4) L.W.23 MADRAS (DB), wherein it is held that under relevant circumstances court can deviate from the multiplier as shown in the 2nd Schedule. 18. In regard to the grant of compensation for Future Prospects, the Learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants relied on the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court: (a) SARALA VARMA & OTHERS VS DTC & ANOTHER, 2009(2) TNMAC 1 SC. (b) GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA SRTC VS SUSAMMA THOMAS, 1994 (2) SCC 176 . 18. In regard to the grant of compensation for Future Prospects, the Learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants relied on the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court: (a) SARALA VARMA & OTHERS VS DTC & ANOTHER, 2009(2) TNMAC 1 SC. (b) GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA SRTC VS SUSAMMA THOMAS, 1994 (2) SCC 176 . (c) NATIONAL INS.CO.LTD. VS INDHIRA SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS, 2008 (1) TNMAC 166 SCC. (d) NATIONAL INS. CO.LTD. VS SAROJ & OTHERS, 2009 (1) TNMAC 619 SC. 19. Yet another decision of the Honble Supreme Court is cited on the side of the Respondents/Claimants RAJ RANI & OTHERS VS ORIENTAL INS. CO. & OTHERS., 2009 (1) TNMAC 638 SC wherein it is held that it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation irrespective of the fact that whether any plea in that behalf was raised or not. 20. In the instant case on hand, even though on the side of the Respondents/Claimants, Ex.P8 Salary Certificate dated 08.08.2000 issued by the employer in respect of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu was marked as an exhibit to show that the deceased Net Salary was Rs.18,100 p.m., it is to be pointed out that no one witness from the office where the deceased worked was examined as witness. As a matter of fact, in Ex.P8 Salary Certificate, the break up figure of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu salary was mentioned hereunder: Basic Salary : Rs.8,000 D.A (20%) : Rs.1,600 Commission : Rs.6,000 Conveyance : Rs.1,500 HRA : Rs.1,000 Total Rs.18,100/- 21. Since the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu was an M.B.A. Graduate and since he was aged 24 years at the time of his death and notwithstanding the fact that no witness was examined from the organisation where the deceased served as Business Manager, we deem it appropriate to take into account of the future prospects of the deceased also and accordingly, determines the monthly Loss of Income of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu at Rs.10,600/-per month and towards Future Prospects, we estimate the loss at Rs.4,500/-p.m. and accordingly in all, we determine the Loss of monthly Income/Pecuniary Loss in respect of the deceased at Rs.15,100/-p.m. as an Equitable one and fair sum. From and out of the sum of Rs.15,100/-, we deduct one third sum of Rs.5,033/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance works out to Rs.10,067/- and this sum, we aptly take into account as Loss of Income/Pecuniary Loss per month in respect of the death of the deceased son of the Respondents/Claimants. Per year, it comes to Rs.1,20,804/-(Rs.10,067X12). Since the First Respondent/First Claimants (father) age was 51 and the Second Respondent/Second Claimants (Mother) aged about 46 at the time of the death of the deceased son, we deem it fit and proper to adopt a just fair and reasonable multiplier of 12 and accordingly, the Loss of Income works out to Rs.14,49,648/-(Rs.1,20,804X12). Towards loss of Love and Affection, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the Respondents/Claimants. Towards Funeral Expenses, we award a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Loss of Estate, we grant a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, we award a total compensation of Rs.15,14,648/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fourteen thousand six hundred and forty eight only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of accident till date of payment with pro costs payable by the Appellant/Second Respondent Insurance Company (being the insurer of the offending container lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01-C-6248) the Respondents/Claimants as compensation for the death of their son in a road accident that took place on 22.07.2000. The Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation amount awarded by this Court in equal proportions and the break up figures of the same is mentioned hereunder: i) Loss of Income - Rs.14,49,648.00 ii) Loss of Love & Affection - Rs. 50,000.00 iii) Funeral Expenses - Rs. 5,000.00 iv) Loss of Estate - Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.15,14,648.00/- 22. Per contra, the Award of the Tribunal in granting a sum of Rs.24,65,668/-to the respondents/Claimants was indeed and exorbitant one, in our considered view. 23. Earlier, this Court in C.M.P.No.3579 of 2005 on 09.03.2005 had passed an order of stay on condition that the Petitioner/Appellant deposits the balance compensation of amount including interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4973 of 2001 on the file of II Judge, Court of Small Causes (MACT) Chennai within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order, etc., 24. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 25. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 25. The Respondents/Claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares amount of compensation (less the amount already withdrawn if any) by filing necessary payment out application before the trial court in the manner known to law. Likewise, the Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to receive the excess amount if any lying to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4973 of 2001 by filing necessary payment out application before the Tribunal in the manner known to law and the Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders thereto on merits. The Lawyers fee is fixed at Rs.22,146/-