Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the State Transport Corporation is before this Court challenging the liability and also questioning the quantum. 2. On 24.02.2005, one Mr.Venkatramanan along with his two friends Jagadeesan and Kolanthaivelu travelled by Hero Honda Motorcycle which was hit by the Transport Corporation bus allegedly driven rash and negligently. In the accident, Kolanthaivelu and Venkatramanan died while they were taken for treatment and Jagadeesan survived with grievous injuries. The mother of Kolanthaivelu filed claim petition to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. 3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant Corporation contending that three persons travelled in the motorcycle and that alone caused the accident and the rider of the vehicle did not have driving licence. 4. On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus and fixed 50% negligence 50% negligence on the rider of the two wheeler observing that the riding of the vehicle was without licence and three persons travelled in the motor cycle. As far as quantum is concerned, it determined at Rs.2,59,000/- and awarded Rs.1,29,000/-as the rider of the two wheeler was also responsible for the accident. Aggrieved by that only the Transport Corporation assailed the award before this Court. 5. Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the person who drove the two wheeler was a student and he did not have licence to ride the vehicle. Secondly, she submitted that travelling of three persons in two wheeler alone was cause for the accident and therefore, 50% negligence fastened on the Transport Corporation is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant submitted that the son of the respondent namely Kolanthaivelu was only a pillion rider and he did not ride the motor cycle and moreover, no evidence is available to show that the travel of three persons in the motorcycle caused the accident. 6. On the other hand, Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant submitted that the son of the respondent namely Kolanthaivelu was only a pillion rider and he did not ride the motor cycle and moreover, no evidence is available to show that the travel of three persons in the motorcycle caused the accident. He relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in KattabommanTransport Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli V. Vellai Duraichi and others [ 2004 (1) CTC 677 ] and another Judgment in The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 463, VOC Salai, Karaikudi v. 1.Uma and others [2011 (1) TN MAC 136 (DB)] and contended that the plea of the Transport Corporation that three persons travelled alone caused the accident has to be established by substantial evidence. As no evidence is adduced, the plea of the Transport Corporation is liable to be rejected, the counsel contended. With regard to the compensation, he submitted that no amount was awarded towards future prospects and he relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Malikand another versus Kiran Pal and others [2009 (1) (TN MAC) 593 (SC)] . 7. Heard the parties and perused the records. 8. The Tribunal based on the eye witness and exhibit Ex.P3 Charge sheet filed against the driver of the Transport Corporation found that the Transport driver drove the bus rash and negligently. Similarly, the Tribunal found that the person who drove the motor cycle was aged about 17 years and there was no chance for him to get driving licence and travel of three persons in the vehicle was also responsible for the accident and fixed the liability 50 : 50. The only eye witness, P.W.2 spoke about the manner of the accident. The Tribunal rightly believed his evidence and it also rejected the evidence of R.W.1 an Officer from the Transport Corporation stating that he was not eye witness. 9. Though it is contended by the Transport Corporation that the accident occurred because of the travelling of three persons in the motor cycle, there is no evidence available on the side of the appellant Corporation to substantiate its plea that the travel of three persons alone caused the accident. The evidence of eye witness only proves that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident. The evidence of eye witness only proves that the driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident. In that event, the fastening of 50% negligence on the rider of the motor cycle is not sustainable and therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus as proved by evidence of P.W.2 eye witness. Therefore, the entire compensation is liable to be paid by the Transport Corporation. The Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in 2004 (1) CTC 677 (Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli V. Vellai Duraichi and others) and 2011 (1) TNMAC 136 (The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 463, VOC Salai, Karaikudi v. 1.Uma and others) declare that to seek the benefit of contributory negligence, the Transport Corporation/ Insurance company has to establish by substantial evidence that the accident occurred because of addition of one or more person in addition to permitted number of two riders. Paragraph 8 of KattabommanTransport Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli V. Vellai Duraichi and others [ 2004 (1) CTC 677 ] reads as follows: "8.) In the light of the said conclusion, we have carefully verified the factual details and the ultimate decision arrived at in the first Division Bench decision, namely, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division v. Abdul Salam (cites supra). As observed earlier, except stating that 3 persons travelled in a motor vehicle, which is prohibited, no specific finding was given to the effect that travelling of three persons in a motor cycle was responsible for the accident; hence we are of the view that the conclusion in 2003 (1) M.L.J.489 is to be confined to that case. In other words, merely because there is violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules or the policy conditions, it is not automatic that in every case the principle of contributory negligence is to be applied mechanically. As rightly observed in the other Division Bench decision, namely, M.AnandavalliAmma v. Arvind Eye Hospital, 2002 (3) L.W. 710 , unless there is evidence to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking/travelling more persons in a motor cycle which resulted in an accident, the owner of the other vehicle and its insurer will be liable to pay compensation. To put it clear, if the appellant-Transport Corporation is able to prove that it is because of the addition of one more (third person in the motor cycle instead of two), the accident occurred, the position would be different. In other words, unless the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act that is taking more persons than the prescribed number, the owner/Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. In the case on hand the materials placed before the Tribunal show that it was the bus driver who had gone to the other side of the road, hit the motor cycle thereby caused the accident. There is no evidence to show that the accident occurred because of travelling of three persons in the motor cycle. In the light of the above said conclusion, we reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant." Paragraph 11 and 12 of The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 463, VOC Salai, Karaikudi v. 1.Uma and others [2011 (1) TN MAC 136 (DB)] reads as follows: "11.) Plea of contributory negligence has to be established by substantive evidence. After necessary Application under Section 170 of M.V.Act, Appellant-Insurance Company must have adduced proper evidence to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. Even though Appellant-Insurance Company has taken the plea of contributory negligence, no substantive evidence was adduced to establish the same. Apart from the self-serving evidence of RW1, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. 12.) As seen from Exs.P1-FIR, Criminal case in Crime No.16/2003 was registered against the lorry driver. After completion of the Investigation, charge-sheet [Ex.P4] was also filed against the lorry driver. Filing of charge -sheet [Ex.P4] is a prima facie indication showing that the driver of the Lorry is responsible for the accident. Merely because three persons travelled in the Motorcycle, it is not to be readily presumed that deceased was negligent in riding the TVS Suzuki. It is pertinent to note that the deceased was travelling with his wife and with their son Nagappan @ Siva, aged 14 years. Merely because three persons travelled in the Motorcycle, it is not to be readily presumed that deceased was negligent in riding the TVS Suzuki. It is pertinent to note that the deceased was travelling with his wife and with their son Nagappan @ Siva, aged 14 years. In the absence of substantive evidence, Tribunal rightly held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry driver and rightly rejected the plea of contributory negligence." In view of the above said Division Bench judgments, in the absence of any evidence on the side of the Transport Corporation, no contributory negligence could be fastened on the rider of the two wheeler. 10. There is no evidence available to enable the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the person who drove the two wheeler was aged about 17 years and there was no chance for him to have driving licence. Though the Transport Corporation took a specific plea that the rider of the vehicle was a student, no evidence was adduced in that regard. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the rider of the vehicle was aged about 17 years and he did not have the driving licence. 11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took Rs.15,000/-as notional income. As the deceased was a student, the Tribunal deducted Rs.3,000/-towards his personal expenses and determined Rs.12,000/-as loss of dependency. Based on the age of the respondent namely 34 years, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 17 and arrived Rs.2,04,000/- as loss of dependency and Rs.50,000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses were awarded. As the tribunal found that the rider of the vehicle also was responsible for the accident, 50% was directed to be paid by the Transport Corporation. The accident occurred on 24.02.2005. However, for a death of a minor Rs.3,000/-per month was taken as notional income by the Division Bench of this Court in The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited versus Uma and others reported 2011 1 TN MAC 136. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in 2005, this Court follows the above Division Bench judgment and takes a notional income at Rs.3,000/-per month of the deceased and deducts 50% towards his personal expenses and determines the monthly contribution at Rs.1,500/-and the yearly loss of income at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 12). Considering the fact that the accident occurred in 2005, this Court follows the above Division Bench judgment and takes a notional income at Rs.3,000/-per month of the deceased and deducts 50% towards his personal expenses and determines the monthly contribution at Rs.1,500/-and the yearly loss of income at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 12). The age of the mother was 35 years and therefore the Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier 17 as per the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly, loss of dependency is Rs.3,06,000/- (Rs.18,000/- X 17). 12. Rs.50,000/- awarded towards love and affection is confirmed as the deceased was the only son. Rs.5,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is also confirmed. Since no amount was awarded towards future prospects, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court awards a sum of Rs.13,400/-. In all amounting to Rs.3,74,400/- which is rounded off to Rs.3,75,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only) which is required to be paid by the Transport Corporation deducting the amount which is already deposited by them within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 7.5% interest awarded by the Tribunal remains un-altered. 13. In the result, the appeal is disposed of and the award amount is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand Only) with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till date of deposit. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14. In view of the order passed in the CMA, the Cross Objection No.SR7032 of 2012 is closed.