Judgment : Per N. KIRUBAKARAN,J. 1. The fate should not have been so cruel however, by a stroke, three minor children were made fatherless and the first respondent become a widow and the parents lost their son According to the claimants on 10. 1993, when the victim viz., Subbash Chandran, who was working as a Special Officer in a Palapattu Primary Agricultural Co.op.Bank, had traveled in a van which, hit against the lorry while overtaking. For the death of the said Subash Chandran, the claim petition was filed and was resisted by the appellant/Insurance Company as well as the eighth respondent/Insurance Company. 2. On perusing the pleading and the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of van as well as the lorry and were held equally responsible for the accident. As the victim was working as a Special Officer, and considering his age 43 adopted multiplier ‘18’ and his monthly income at Rs. 4,505/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/-. As against the said award only, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company. 3. Mr. Jeyendrakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that the appellant/United India Insurance Company had no liability, as the award was passed against the appellant contrary to the evidence available on record. He relied on the evidence of an eye witness P.W.2, who categorically stated that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Inspite of the said evidence, the learned counsel submitted that the award was passed against the appellant to the extent of 50% and liable to pay 50% of the amount. Secondly, he submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. When the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 43, the learned counsel submitted, then it should have adopted multiplier of “15” as per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. In nutshell, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have absolved the appellant from the liability. 4. Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy , the learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. A.Jinasenan, counsel for the respondents/claimants 1 to 6 fairly conceded that the multiplier method to be adopted in this case is “15” as per the II Schedule and therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that multiplier “15” may be adopted instead of “18”. 4. Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy , the learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. A.Jinasenan, counsel for the respondents/claimants 1 to 6 fairly conceded that the multiplier method to be adopted in this case is “15” as per the II Schedule and therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that multiplier “15” may be adopted instead of “18”. The future prospects of the deceased was even though taken into consideration by the Tribunal, 1/3rd of the income should be added along with the salary drawn by the deceased at the time of the accident .The recent Supreme Court judgment, in Sarala Verma (SMT) and Others v . Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121: (2009)4 MLJ997 held as follows: “In Susamma Thomas this court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarala Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by the mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, en addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less than six”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel submitted that there are as many as six dependents and therefore 1/4th alone is liable to be deducted to his personal expenses, for the age between 40 – 50 , 30% of the salary has to be added along with salary towards future prospects. 5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents 7 to 9 and eighth respondent/National Insurance Company which is the insurer of the lorry. The eighth respondent/The National Insurance Company fully participated in the proceeding before the Tribunal. However, it chose not to appear before this Court, Since all the materials are available before this court, this court is passing this judgment on merits. .6. A perusal of the pleadings, evidence and award would go to show that the Tribunal wrongly fixed the liability both on the appellant and as well as on the eighth respondent/National Insurance Company. The eye witness viz., Mr. Pichaimuthu as P.W.2 categorically stated in this evidence as follows: .TAMIL 7. Theaforesaid evidence of P.W.2 was the eye witness, who only explained about the manner in which the accident took place. Even though P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased adduced that both the van and lorry were responsible for the accident, she was not the eye witness, as she was not present at the place where the accident had occurred. In the absence of any other eye witness, the Tribunal ought to have believed the P.W.2’s eye witness and ought to have held that the lorry alone was responsible for the accident and ought to have fasted liability on the eight respondent viz., The National Insurance Company, Pondicherry. In the absence of any other eye witness, the Tribunal ought to have believed the P.W.2’s eye witness and ought to have held that the lorry alone was responsible for the accident and ought to have fasted liability on the eight respondent viz., The National Insurance Company, Pondicherry. The tribunal also in paragraph 14 of the award observed that the accident occurred because the lorry was suddenly stopped while trying to overtake the van and as a result, the van dashed against the lorry. Merely because, FIR was filed against the driver of the van, it cannot be concluded that the van driver was responsible for the accident. Without giving any reasons, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the van as well as the lorry were responsible for the accident and the same is contrary to the evidence available on record viz., eye witness P.W.2 and therefore, the liability fastened against the appellant United India Insurance Company is set aside. This Court based on evidence of P.W.2 comes to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry alone was responsible for the accident and the negligence is fastened on the driver of the lorry alone. Therefore, the eighth respondent/National Insurance Company, Pondicherry, who is the insurer of the lorry is liable to pay the entire compensation. Moreover, the eighth respondent is stated to have not preferred any appeal against the award of the Tribunal. 8. As far as the compensation is concerned, this Court has to consider the age of the deceased, monthly income and the number of dependents of the deceased. Even though, Exhibit A-2 Post mortem report reflected the age of the deceased as 42, the Tribunal rightly determined the age as 43 as per the School Certificate of the deceased. Exhibit A-4 School Certificate (S.S.L.C certificate) and therefore, the age determined by the Tribunal is conformed. .9. With regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, Exhibit A7 proved that the deceased was drawing about Rs.4050/- at the time of the accident. The Tribunal considered the future prospects and determined the monthly income as 5,000/-after deducting (1/3rd) towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal calculated the loss of income as follows: .Rs.5,000*2/3*18*12=Rs.7,20,000/- 10. .9. With regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, Exhibit A7 proved that the deceased was drawing about Rs.4050/- at the time of the accident. The Tribunal considered the future prospects and determined the monthly income as 5,000/-after deducting (1/3rd) towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal calculated the loss of income as follows: .Rs.5,000*2/3*18*12=Rs.7,20,000/- 10. As far as the future prospects are concerned, as laid down by The Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma (SMT) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra), held that for the age between 40 and 50, 30% should be added towards the future prospects. .11. Inthis case, the deceased was earning about Rs.4049 and therefore 30% had to be added to the salary towards future prospects and the monthly income is Rs.4,049 + 1,300=Rs.5,265 .12. As far as the deduction towards personal expense is concerned, as per the Sarala Verma (SMT) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra) case, as stated above 1/4th is liable to be deducted taking into consideration the number of dependents. In this case, there are six dependents and therefore 1/4th alone is liable to be deducted. Accordingly, the loss of income would be Rs.5,265-1/4*12*15=Rs.7,10,640/- 13. A perusal of the award would go to show that the Tribunal faded to exercise its jurisdiction which was vested with it under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even the rudimentary principles were not followed while calculating compensation as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is a benevolent piece of legislation aimed at compensating the victims of the accident. It is very unfortunate that no amount was awarded towards loss of Consortium, loss of Love and Affection, Transportation and funeral Expenses which are the basic heads as per the Motor Vehicles Act. As far as the loss of consortium is concerned, it is the age of the widow which has to be seen. In this case, the first respondent lost her life partner at the young age of 32 and that is most important aspect which has to be considered very humanely by the Tribunal. However, it was not done and therefore, this Court awards Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the first respondent 14. The respondent 2, 3 and 4 are the minor children of the victim. They lost their father at the very young age. However, it was not done and therefore, this Court awards Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the first respondent 14. The respondent 2, 3 and 4 are the minor children of the victim. They lost their father at the very young age. Their father would not be available to them throughout their life to look after them to guide and to groom them. And therefore, towards the loss of love and affection, they should be compensated suitably, each child is granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- which amounts to Rs.45,000/-in toto. Respondents 5 and 6 are the parents of the victim and they entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-each amounting to Rs.20,000/- in total. Towards funeral expenses, 5,000/-, and for transportation Rs.2,500 are granted by this Court. 15. In fine, the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company is allowed and it absolved from its liability. Even though there is no cross appeal for appeal by the claimants, this Court fixes the liability on the eighth respondent viz, the National Insurance Company and the eighth respondent alone is liable to pay the entire award amount 16. The Honourable Supreme Court recognized the powers of this Court, and awards more amount even in the absence of cross appeal for appeal by the claimants in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh AIR 2003 SC 674 : (2003) 2 SCC 274 , Dhangir v. Madan Mohan AIR 1988 SCC 54 , Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Saroja 2008(1) TNMAC 352. The compensation has to be just and fair. In this case, the Tribunal did not award fair compensation and therefore, this Court has to award amount as per the available evidence and accordingly, award of Rs.7,20,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,08,140/- to be paid by the eighth respondent/National Insurance Company, Pondicherry. The Tribunal granted 9% interest and the same is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of as aforesaid. There will be no order as to as costs. 17. Counsel for both the parties submitted that appellant Insurance Company deposited entire award amount payable by the appellant and out of which 50% was ordered to be paid to the claimants. As the claimants had already withdrawn 50% of the deposited amount deposited by the appellant, liberty is given to the appellant to withdraw the balance 50% of the amount. Counsel for both the parties submitted that appellant Insurance Company deposited entire award amount payable by the appellant and out of which 50% was ordered to be paid to the claimants. As the claimants had already withdrawn 50% of the deposited amount deposited by the appellant, liberty is given to the appellant to withdraw the balance 50% of the amount. With regard to the amount drawn by the claimants, the appellant is at liberty to recover it from the eighth respondent/National Insurance Company, Pondicherry.