Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 07.04.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.495 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee, awarding a compensation of Rs.5,86,844/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 09.07.1995, at about 08.10 p.m. when the deceased was riding his scooter bearing registration No.TME6598 from Avadi to Villivakkam, on the left side of the MTH road, the bus coming from Guindy to Pattabiram bearing route No.JJ70C and registration No.TN01 N2159, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, swayed towards the right side of the road and dashed against the scooter of the deceased near the Christian burial ground near steel plant. As a result of the said accident, the deceased fell on the road and died due to head injuries. 4. As the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the respondent as the owner of the vehicle is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners with interest and costs. 5. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Krishnamurthi. The second and third petitioners are the minor daughters of the deceased Krishnamurthi and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased Krishnamurthi. It has been stated in the petition that prior to the accident, the deceased was employed as a carpenter in Southern Railway and earning a salary of Rs.3,726/-per month and that his age was 36 years at the time of accident. The petitioners have therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest and costs from the respondent under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the deceased as well as the age of the petitioner. The respondent has also not admitted that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. 6. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the deceased as well as the age of the petitioner. The respondent has also not admitted that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the manner of the accident. The respondent has stated that on the date of accident, the bus was proceeding from Guindy to Pattabiram, adhering all the traffic rules and regulations and that the scooter was ridden by the deceased Krishnamurthi at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and that while negotiating a curve on the road, came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the bus. It was stated by the respondent that the accident had occurred only due to the fault of the deceased rider of the scooter. It was also stated that the FIR was also given by the driver of the respondents bus. The respondent has also submitted that the claim was excessive. 7. The petitioners had initially filed the claim petition as against Dr.Ambedkar Transport Corporation Ltd., But, as the name of the Dr.Ambedkar Transport Corporation Ltd., was changed to Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., the petitioners had subsequently corrected the name of the respondent in their claim after filing the appropriate petition. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused due to the fault of the respondents bus driver? (ii) Is the respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? (iii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioners are entitled to get? (iv) To what other relief are the petitioners entitled to get? 9. On the petitioners side, the wife of the deceased Krishnamurthi, who died in the accident, was examined as PW1 and the eye witness of the accident one Balaji was examined as PW2 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus Ranganathan, who drove the bus at the time of accident, was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 10. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus Ranganathan, who drove the bus at the time of accident, was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 10. It is seen from Ex.P1, the FIR, that the complaint regarding the accident had been given at the Avadi Police Station by the driver of the respondents bus and based on this complaint, a criminal case had been registered at Avadi Police Station in Crime No.822/1995, as against the driver of the respondents bus, under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. Ex.P2 is the Post-mortem Report, wherein it is seen that the deceased Krishnamurthis post-mortem had been done at Kilpauk Government Hospital. The PW1, Anjana Devi, in her evidence, had deposed that the accident had happened while her husband was travelling in his scooter towards Villivakkam and she has admitted that she is not an eye witness of the accident. Balaji, the eye witness of the accident was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence, has stated that the accident had happened on 09.07.1995 at 08.15 p.m. at Tirumullaivoyal and that he had seen the accident; that while he was travelling in his scooter from Padi to Avadi, the respondents bus had overtook his scooter and dashed against the scooter ridden by the deceased, which had been coming in the opposite direction. He had further deposed that the accident had been caused only by the driver of the respondents bus and that he was not aware of the identity of the scooterist, who had been hit by the bus. 11. The driver of the respondents bus was examined as RW1. The RW1, in his evidence, had deposed that when he was driving the bus near Hanuman Nagar near Tirumullaivoyal, the scooterist while negotiating a curve on the road, in front of the bus, dashed against the right side of the bus and hence he cannot be held totally responsible for the cause of the accident. It is also seen that the FIR marked as Ex.P1 has also been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the RW1. In his complaint, he had stated that the scooter bearing registration No.TME6598, coming on the right side of the road had hit against the front right side of the bus and stopped. It is also seen that the FIR marked as Ex.P1 has also been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the RW1. In his complaint, he had stated that the scooter bearing registration No.TME6598, coming on the right side of the road had hit against the front right side of the bus and stopped. He had also stated in the complaint that due to this, the front right side of the scooter had been enmeshed in the bus body. It is evident from this that the deceased had travelled on the left side of the road from Avadi to Villivakkam and that the driver of the respondents bus had rashly and negligently driven the bus and dashed against the scooter causing the accident. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of the PW2, the eye witness of the accident and on examination of the FIR marked as Ex.P1, held that the accident had been caused only by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondents bus and accordingly held the respondent, being the owner of the said bus, liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss incurred by them due to the death of the deceased Krishnamurthi. 12. On the petitioners side, the Legal Heir Certificate was marked as Ex.P5. It is seen from this that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second and third petitioners are the minor daughters of the deceased and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased Krishnamurthi. Ex.P3 is the original 10th standard mark sheet certificate of the deceased was marked in support of the contention of the petitioners that the deceased Krishnamurthi was aged 36 years at the time of accident. It was also claimed by the petitioners that the deceased was a carpenter employed in Southern Railway and earning a sum of Rs.3,726/-per month and in support of this claim, the Salary Certificate of the deceased had been marked as Ex.P4. Though, the petitioner has stated in her petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,726/- per month, she had stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,200/-per month at the time of the accident and had marked Ex.P4 in support of her contention. Though, the petitioner has stated in her petition that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,726/- per month, she had stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,200/-per month at the time of the accident and had marked Ex.P4 in support of her contention. On a scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the deceased Krishnamurthi had been working as a carpenter in Southern Railway at the time of the accident and earning a sum of Rs.4,198/- per month. The Tribunal opined that if the accident had not occurred, the deceased could have got promotion during the course of his employment and got an enhanced salary. It is seen from a scrutiny of Ex.P2, the post-mortem report and Ex.P3, the 10th standard mark certificate that the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of accident. As such, the Tribunal adopting a multiplier of 16, as relevant to the age of the deceased Krishnamoorthi, assessed the income which the deceased could have earned as Rs.4,198/- X 12 X 16 = Rs.8,06,016/-. Deducting 1/3rd share of this, for his personal expenses, ie.Rs.2,68,672/-the Tribunal assessed the contribution of the deceased Krishnamurthi to his family as Rs.8,06,016/- - Rs.2,68,672/- = Rs.5,37,344/-and accordingly granted an award of Rs.5,37,344/-to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further granted an award of Rs.20,000/- to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium; Rs.20,000/-was granted by the Tribunal to the petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection; the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.5,000/-was granted by the Tribunal to the petitioners under the head of mental shock and pain and suffering. The Tribunal further granted an award of Rs.2,500/-to the petitioners as compensation under the head of funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.5,86,844/- to the petitioners as compensation and directed the respondent to deposit the above award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.495 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. The Tribunal apportioned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-of the award amount to the first petitioner and apportioned a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-each to the second and third petitioners and a sum of Rs.36,844/- was apportioned to the fourth petitioner. After the deposit was made by the respondent, the award amount apportioned to the petitioners was to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit for a period of three years. The second and third minor petitioners apportioned share of award amount was to remain as deposit in the bank until such time they attained the age of a major and the first petitioner, the mother of the minor petitioners was permitted to withdraw interest on the minors share of award, once in three months, for the upkeep and welfare of the minor children. The respondent was directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,545/-to the petitioners and the Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.300/-. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the appellants bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. It was further contended that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the fact that the FIR was lodged only by the driver of the Corporation alleging that the deceased came rashly and negligently and dashed in the right side of the bus. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further contended that the award granted under the heads of consortium, love and affection, pain and suffering and loss of income are erroneous and excessive and has prayed for setting aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further contended that the award granted under the heads of consortium, love and affection, pain and suffering and loss of income are erroneous and excessive and has prayed for setting aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has cited a Judgment made in 2009 ACJ 2359 , Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., V. Deo Patodi and others, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Quantum – Fatal accident – Deceased aged 22, brilliant student, graduated in Business Administration from University in U.K. and intending to pursue MBA from University in Australia – Claimants: father aged 51 and mother – Deceased only son of the claimants – Deceased was doing part-time work with World Bank while doing graduation at monthly salary of £1,088 and after graduation a U.S. Based concern had offered him employment at annual remuneration of $41,600 which he did not accept – Tribunal assessed income at Rs.18,000 p.m., dependency at Rs.6,000 p.m., adopted multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs.9,36,000 plus Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses – Appellate court assessed the dependency at Rs.12,000 p.m. and allowed Rs.18,72,000 plus Rs.25,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.1,25,000 for medical expenses as the deceased survived for 7 days after the accident – Apex Court assessed income at Rs.25,000 p.m., deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased and adopted multiplier of 10 – Matter remanded to the Tribunal for drawing a fresh award." 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that as the deceased was aged about 36 years, a multiplier of 13 should have been adopted in assessment of compensation. The Tribunals award of Rs.5,000/- granted under the head of pain and suffering is not pertinent to this case. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/cross-objector argued that the award granted under the head of love and affection and consortium are on the lower side. The award granted for transport and funeral expenses are also meagre. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had further stated that as the dependants are 4 in number, only ¼ of the income of the deceased should have been deducted for his personal expenses and hence, the Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3 of income of the deceased for his personal expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had further stated that as the dependants are 4 in number, only ¼ of the income of the deceased should have been deducted for his personal expenses and hence, the Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3 of income of the deceased for his personal expenses. It has been argued that the Tribunal had also not considered the future enhancement in the salary of the deceased while assessing compensation. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in support of his contentions has cited a Judgment made in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "A.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 166 and 168 – Fatal in accident – Objective approach in assessing compensation – "Just compensation" – What is , and basic requirements for arriving at – Requirement of maintaining uniformity and consistency in determining compensation among decisions of Tribunals/courts -in respect of procedure/steps to be followed to arrive at said uniformity and consistency. Held, assessment of compensation, though involves certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective – Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions – Hence, expressing grave concern over lack of uniformity and consistency among the decisions of Tribunals, held, when the factors/inputs as well as the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation – To arrive at uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation in cases of death, Tribunals directed to follow the well-settled steps as indicated herein – Tort Law – Obligations Law – Compensation/Damages – Jurisprudence – Conceptual jurisprudence – "Justice" and "justness" – Origination of – Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, S. 1-A B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 166 and 168 – Fatal accident – Assessment of compensation – Facts required to be established by claimants in relation thereto – Issues to be determined by Tribunal to arrive at loss of dependency – Restated – Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss. 101 to 103 – Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, S. 1-A C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 166 and 168 – Fatal accident – Assessment of compensation – Facts required to be established by claimants in relation thereto – Issues to be determined by Tribunal to arrive at loss of dependency – Restated – Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss. 101 to 103 – Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, S. 1-A C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 166 and 168 – Fatal accident – Heads (and amounts under such heads) under which compensation may be granted – Other than the detailed calculation required to calculate the loss of dependancy, held, certain lump sums may be awarded under heads of (i)loss of estate, (ii)loss of consortium, and (iii)funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) – However, further held, no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased – Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – S. 1-A – Tort Law." 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties in their appeals and scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that there is discrepancy in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court decides to modify the award as follows: 1. The Tribunals award of Rs.5,37,344/- under the head of loss of income has been done after proper scrutiny of the income and age of the deceased. As such, this Court confirms the award of Rs.5,37,344/- granted under the said head. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium, which is also found to be reasonable and fair and as such, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal under the said head. 3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the claimants under the head of loss of love and affection. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.30,000/- and apportions it to be shared equally amongst the claimants 2, 3 and 4 only. 4. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-under the head of transport expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.5,000/-. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-under the head of mental agony. 4. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-under the head of transport expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.5,000/-. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-under the head of mental agony. This Court sets aside the award granted under this head as it is not pertinent. 6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-under the head of funeral expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.10,000/-. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.6,02,344/-as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,86,844/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The additional compensation amount of Rs.15,500/- will carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 19. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant/State Transport Corporation to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest as observed above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.495 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee. 20. This Court imposed a condition on 24.02.2005 to the appellant/Metropolitan Transport Corporation to deposit 50% of the award amount together with interest and costs to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.495 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee. On 21.06.2006, this Court permitted the first and fourth claimants to withdraw 50% of their respective apportioned share of award together with proportionate interest and entire costs. Further, this Court permitted the first claimant to withdraw the accrued interest of the minors share of award in respect of the minor claimants 2 and 3, once in three months from the bank. 21. The additional compensation amount of Rs.15,500/-together with interest is to be included in the apportioned share of the award granted by the Tribunal to the fourth claimant as the award apportioned by the Tribunal to the fourth claimant is marginally less. 21. The additional compensation amount of Rs.15,500/-together with interest is to be included in the apportioned share of the award granted by the Tribunal to the fourth claimant as the award apportioned by the Tribunal to the fourth claimant is marginally less. Now, this Court permits all the claimants to withdraw their balance apportioned share of award amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.495 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee, after filing necessary application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals already made. 22. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The Cross.Objn.No.5 of 2005 filed by the claimant is partly allowed. Subsequently, the Award and Decree, dated 07.04.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.495 of 1995, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.