Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellants / M/s.Patel K.N.R., (VR), NH 46, Package 3, (K.R.1) Camp and National Insurance Company Limited, against the award and decree dated 28.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2), Krishnagiri. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 12.10.2003 at around 11.30 a.m., the deceased Thenmozhi and her mother, the first petitioner in the claim petition were standing at the B.D.O. bus stop on the Krishnagiri to Bargur National Highways Road and at that time the first respondent's vehicle, a Mahendra Jeep bearing Registration No.TN 29 P 7212 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly dashed against the petitioner and her daughter besides a few others. Immediately, both were taken to the hospital. The deceased initially had undergone treatment at the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri, thereafter, she had undergone treatment at St.John's Hospital and Rajashekar Hospital, Bangalore. But subsequently succumbed to her injuries as the treatment proved ineffective. Hence, the parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition against the respondents and claiming a compensation a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest. 3. The second respondent / National Insurance Company Limited had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of valid driving license and permit. Actually, the driver of the jeep had driven the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner, but the deceased and the petitioner had suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident, as such the deceased had attributed the negligence. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. 4. The first respondent had also filed a counter statement and denied the accident which was committed by the driver of the jeep. Actually, the petitioner and the deceased had suddenly crossed the road and in so doing invited the accident. At the time of the accident, the Insurance policy was in effect for the said vehicle. 5. In the said accident two claim petitions have been filed. M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 filed by the parents of the deceased. M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2004 filed by the petitioner, who is the first claimant in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004. Therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed common issues for consideration. 5. In the said accident two claim petitions have been filed. M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 filed by the parents of the deceased. M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2004 filed by the petitioner, who is the first claimant in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004. Therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed common issues for consideration. Against the plea of both parties for the O.P.No.341 of 2004, the following issues were framed:- “(i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? “ 6. On the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined, namely, PW1-first claimant, PW2-Dr.Ashok Kumar and 10 documents were marked, namely, Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Postmortem report, Ex.P3-Medical Billls. Ex.P4-Transfer Certificate, Ex.P5-Hindi Course Certificate, Ex.P6-copy of the Insurance Policy, Ex.P7-Wound Certificate, Ex.P8-Discharge Summary, Ex.P9-Medical Bills, Ex.P10-Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no document was marked. 7. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 12.10.2003 at around 11.30 a.m., she and her daughter were waiting for the bus at the B.D.O. bus stop, at that point of time the driver of the jeep had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. Her daughter succumbed to her injuries, while she had sustained grievous injuries. Her daughter was taken to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri and thereafter she was taken to the private hospital in Bangalore, but, she subsequently expired. Before the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, though her teaching profession besides through tuitions. 8. After considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Insurance Co., had awarded a sum of Rs.5,39,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no documentary evidence that the deceased was working as a Teacher at St.Pauls Higher Secondary School, besides also taking tuitions. As such her earning was Rs.6,000/-. The employer of the deceased was not examined in order to prove that the deceased was working as a Teacher in the said Educational Institution. In the absence of this evidence, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is erroneous. As such her earning was Rs.6,000/-. The employer of the deceased was not examined in order to prove that the deceased was working as a Teacher in the said Educational Institution. In the absence of this evidence, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is erroneous. The learned counsel further argued that the deceased and the first claimant had invited the accident by way of suddenly crossing the road. The deceased was a spinster, so 50% personal expenses to be deducted, but the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses. The learned counsel had cited the following judments as follows: “(i) Mohd.Ameeruddin v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2010(2) TN MAC 649 (SC) INCOME-Assessment-Deceased aged 20 years, a Cleaner on Lorry tanker, earning monthly salary at Rs.2,500 and batta/daily allowance at Rs.50-Tribunal fixed monthly earning at Rs.4,000- High Court in Appeal, however, took into accident monthly salary excluding amount of daily allowance of Rs.50 - High Court of view that batta is not paid as a part of salary, but paid whenever there is work-Held, not proper in absence of evidence that batta was not paid every day – Evidence on record that apart from monthly salary of Rs.2,500 deceased was getting Rs.50 as daily allowance – Tribunal, therefore, was right in assessing monthly income at Rs.4,000/- MULTIPLIER - Proper multiplier – Deceased aged 20 years, unmarried – Claimant: Mother aged 40 years – Tribunal taking into consideration age of mother applied multiplier of 16 – High Court in Appeal following Susamma Thomas applied multiplier of 13 – If, proper – Following decision in Salra Verma, proper multiplier held to be 15 and not 13. (ii) National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Farzana reported in 2009 ACJ 2763 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 163-A read with Second Schedule, item No.6 – Quantum – Fatal accident – Principles of assessment – Notional income – Whether compensation in respect of a person who had no income prior to accident cane be computed by taking Rs.22,500 p.a. as notional income - Held no; Rs.15,000/- p.a. should be taken as notional income. Quantum – Fatal accident – Deceased aged 7, student of 2nd standard in a public school – Claimants; parent – Tribunal taking notional income at Rs.22,500 p.a., adopted multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.3,37,500 plus Rs.10,000 for medical expenses, Rs.5,000 each for transportation of dead body, funeral expenses and loss to estate; total Rs.3,62,500-Appellant court taking notional income at Rs.15,000 p.a., adopted multiplier of 15 and assessed Rs.2,25,000 as pecuniary loss plus Rs.75,000 towards future prospects and Rs.75,000 towards non-pecuniary damages; total Rs.3,75,000 but award of Rs.3,62,500 upheld in the absence of counter claim. ( 2009 ACJ 1924 (SC) and 2007 ACJ 2010 (Delhi) followed) (iii) State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., (Tamil Nadu Division-I) v.Tayamathi reported in 2010(2) TN MAC 570 INCOME – LOSS OF INCOME – Assessment – Deceased aged 42 years, a Veterinary Doctor, earning Rs.16,800 p.m., as salary – Claim of monthly salary at Rs.16,800 p.m., evidenced from Salary Certificate / Ex.P8-Deceased being aged 42 years and having a permanent job, 30% of monthly salary to be added towards future prospects (SC in Sarla verma followed) – Adding 30%, monthly income worked out at Rs.21,840 & annual income at Rs.2,62,080 – Deducting Rs.53,680 towards Income Tax as per slab provided in relevant assessment year, Income fixed at Rs.2,08,400 p.a., - Deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, Rs.1,38,933 worked out as loss of Income to family – Applying multiplier of 14, total Loss of Income assessed at Rs.19,45,066.” 11. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the age of the deceased was 24 years, she was possessing qualification as a teacher, in order to prove her academic qualification she had marked Exs.P4 and P5. The Tribunal had fixed the income as Rs.4,000/- for the deceased for the relevant year 2004, which is not on the higher side. The deceased was the only daughter to the parents. For love and affection Rs.10,000/-had been awarded to the claimant, which is on the lower side. For transport expenses Rs.3,000/- had been awarded to this also is on the lower side. 12. The deceased was the only daughter to the parents. For love and affection Rs.10,000/-had been awarded to the claimant, which is on the lower side. For transport expenses Rs.3,000/- had been awarded to this also is on the lower side. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides and on perusing the impugned decision of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was indeed a qualified teacher as per Exs.P4 and P5, which are academic qualification certificate and her age being 24 years at the time of the accident, which is of a marriageable age besides being an earning member. The quantum of compensation under the head of transport is Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection to each claimant which are on the lower side, besides the Tribunal had not awarded compensation under the head of funeral expenses which forms a crucial head. This Court's further considered opinion that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased Rs.4,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 of the personal expenses had awarded the compensation, which is fair and equitable. 13.Therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the impugned award of the Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004, dated 28.09.2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Krishnagiri, hence, it is confirmed. 14. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the appellant / National Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Krishnagiri within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to deductions, if any already deposited. After such a deposit, being made it is open to the claimants to withdraw the compensation fixed by this Court with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Krishnagiri, after filing necessary payment out of application in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any made already. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Krishnagiri, made in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2004 dated 28.04.2004 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.