Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.22,61,900/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore in M.C.O.P.No.1461 of 2006 for the death of deceased Saravanan in the road traffic accident on 2.3.2006 the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 2.3.2006 at about 8.30 a.m, when deceased Saravanan was traveling as a pillion rider in the TVS Victor motor cycle bearing Regn.No.PY-01-V-8781 driven by one R.Shankar (P.W.2), a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-30-Y-4789 came in opposite direction on the left side of Cuddalore-Vridhachalmm main road near Thambipettai bus stand. At that time, lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-30-Y-4789 owned by the 7th respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle due to the impact, the riders of the motor cycle sustained severe injuries. The deceased Saravanan was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore, where inspite of treatment, injured Saravanan succumbed to injuries. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.53 of 2006 on the file of Kurinjipadi Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The deceased Saravanan was working as Draftsman in Vanavil Dyes & Chemicals Limited and was earning Rs.10,407/- per month. He was also attending to agriculture. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the family has lost the support of their bread winner, the claimants – respondents 1 to 6 have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the claim petition, the appellant Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the accident was only due to the carelessness and negligence of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.PY-01-V-8781. The lorry driver, who was on the wheels at the time of accident, did not have valid driving licence and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance company also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is on the higher side. 4. To substantiate the claim, the 1st respondent/ 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness – Shankar, who was the rider of the two wheeler, was examined as P.W.2. One Mr.Kannan, the then Manager in EID Parry (I) Limited was examined as P.W.3. 4. To substantiate the claim, the 1st respondent/ 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness – Shankar, who was the rider of the two wheeler, was examined as P.W.2. One Mr.Kannan, the then Manager in EID Parry (I) Limited was examined as P.W.3. On the side of claimants, Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked. The lorry driver was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and the evidence of eye witness (P.W.2), the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and held that the appellant Insurance Company and the owner of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Based upon Ex.P.5, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.10,407/-and after notionally deducting the 1/3rd towards statutory deductions, the Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased at Rs.6,938/-. Referring to various judgments, the Tribunal has multiplied the same by two and calculated the loss of income at Rs.13,876 per month i.e., Rs.1,66,512/- per annum (Rs.6938/-x 2 x 12). Adopting the multiplier 17, the Tribunal has calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs.22,11,921/-. Adding conventional Damages, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.22,61,921/- as under: 6. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant Insurance Company had raised the plea that the accident was due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. It is averred that the accident occurred on the middle of the road, where the road is taking a curve and the rider of the motor cycle drove the motor cycle in a high speed and was solely responsible for the accident. Even though such a plea of negligence on the part of rider of the motor cycle is raised in the grounds of appeal, when the appeal was heard, the learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred in the middle of the road and the road was a curve and the rider of the motor cycle failed to take care. 7. Even though the appellant Insurance Company had taken the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, the same has not been substantiated by independent evidence. Except the evidence of lorry driver (R.W.1), no other independent evidence was adduced. 7. Even though the appellant Insurance Company had taken the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, the same has not been substantiated by independent evidence. Except the evidence of lorry driver (R.W.1), no other independent evidence was adduced. Per contra, the claimants have examined P.W.2 – Shankar, who was riding the motor cycle, who had clearly spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The F.I.R. was also registered against the lorry driver. The fact that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry would prima facie indicate negligence on the part of the driver of lorry. The appellant Insurance Company has not adduced substantive evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants. The plea of contributory negligence was rightly negatived by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and we find no reason to differ from the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased was working as Draftsman and because of his qualification he had further future prospects and get further promotion and the Tribunal rightly calculated the annual income of deceased at Rs.6,938 x 2 x 12 = Rs.1,66,512/-. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% p.a. and prayed for enhancement of interest at 7.5% per annum. 9. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that the deceased Saravanan was working as a Draftsman in Vanavil Dyes & Chemicals Limited, Cuddalore and was getting Rs.10,407/- as salary. P.W.1 also stated that her husband is also doing agriculture and earning not less than Rs.30,000/- per month. Ex.P.5 is the salary certificate from which it is seen that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.10,407/- per month. Taking into account Ex.P.5, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,407/-. Pointing out that statutory deductions are to be made from the salary of the deceased, the Tribunal notionally deducted 1/3rd of the said income towards statutory deductions. The Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased at Rs.6,938/- per month. 10. Based on the evidence adduced proving the educational qualification, nature of appointment, promotional prospects, etc., the Tribunal observed that future prospects of the deceased have to be considered. Referring to the judgments of SUMAN JAIN & OTHERS VS. The Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased at Rs.6,938/- per month. 10. Based on the evidence adduced proving the educational qualification, nature of appointment, promotional prospects, etc., the Tribunal observed that future prospects of the deceased have to be considered. Referring to the judgments of SUMAN JAIN & OTHERS VS. ABDUL KAYUM AND ANOTHER, ( 2007 ACJ 1242 ), KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMA THOMAS, ( (1994) 2 SCC 176 ) and SARLA DIXIT VS. BALWANT YADAV, ( (1996) 3 SCC 179 = 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the Tribunal held that as a permanent employee of Vanavil Dyes & and Chemicals, the deceased was having an assured income and had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,938/- per month and arrived at annual income of deceased as Rs.1,66,512/-(Rs.6,938 x 12 x 2). 11. The deceased was also doing agriculture by raising sugarcane. Ex.P.15 is the statement issued by EID Parry (I) Limited. In Ex.P.15, 282.349 Mts of sugarcane valuing at Rs.1,015/- per MT was supplied by the deceased and the total value is Rs.2,86,584/-. From agricultural operations, 10% was taken as profit that the deceased was contributing to the family and the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased from agriculture at Rs.28,658/-per annum being 10 percent of total agricultural income (Rs.2,86,584/-). Accordingly, the Tribunal has taken the total income of the deceased from his employment and the agricultural operations at Rs.1,95,170/-per annum (Rs.1,66,532/- + Rs.28,658). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency to the family was calculated at Rs.1,30,113/- per annum. 12. As per Ex.P.5, the deceased Saravanan was getting salary of Rs.10,407/-. The Tribunal was not right in notionally deducting 1/3rd towards statutory deduction and thereafter multiplying Rs.6,938/- by two and fixing the monthly income at Rs.6,938x2 = Rs.13,876/-. It is fairly well settled that where the deceased has a permeant job with assured income, additions are to be made towards future prospects. But the Tribunal was not justified in adding 100 percent of the income towards future prospects. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be endorsed with. 13. Additions towards future prospects could only be in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ]. But the Tribunal was not justified in adding 100 percent of the income towards future prospects. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be endorsed with. 13. Additions towards future prospects could only be in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ]. In Sarla Verma case, the Supreme Court observed that suitable addition should be made for "future prospects" and in Paragraph (24) it was held as under:- "24. In Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit (1996) 3 SCC 179 the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah (2003) 2 SCC 148 the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an 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 tax"). 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 standardise 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 therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 14. From the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.5, it is seen that the deceased had a permanent job and he had an assured income. The deceased was aged 34 years. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.10407/-, which is rounded off to Rs.10,400/-adding 50% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.15,600/- (Rs.10,400/-+ Rs.5,200). Since the deceased was getting Rs.15,600/-, suitable deduction has to be made towards income-tax. 15. Deduction towards Income-tax:-In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. The deceased was aged 34 years. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.10407/-, which is rounded off to Rs.10,400/-adding 50% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.15,600/- (Rs.10,400/-+ Rs.5,200). Since the deceased was getting Rs.15,600/-, suitable deduction has to be made towards income-tax. 15. Deduction towards Income-tax:-In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. INDIRA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHRS, ( (2008) 2 SCC 763 ) and ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. RAM PRASAD VARMA AND OTHERS, (2009 (1) TN MAC 134 (SC)), the Supreme Court held that the income payable has to be deducted from the compensation. Applying the standard rate applicable, 20% has to be deducted towards income tax. Following the ratio of the above decision, 20% deduction has to be made towards Income-tax i.e., a sum of Rs.3,120/- being 20% of Rs.15,600/- (Rs.15,600 x 20/100) has to be deducted towards income tax. Deducting the said sum of Rs.3,120/-towards income-tax, the income of the deceased from his employment as Draftsman is calculated at Rs.12,480/-. 16. Income from Agriculture:- In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was also doing agriculture and that he was raising sugarcane crops and supplied sugarcane to M/s.EID Parry Limited. From Ex.P.15, it is seen that from the year 2001-02 till 200506, deceased was regularly supplying sugarcane and was getting regular income from agriculture. During the year 2005-2006, the deceased supplied 282.349 MTs of sugarcane valuing at Rs.10,15/-per M.T, and the total value is Rs.2,86,584.23. The Tribunal has taken 10% of the same as income from agriculture. 17. It is fairly well settled that in case of death of a person doing agriculture, the total income cannot be said to be loss to the family. The agricultural lands continued to remain with the family. The compensation amount could be awarded only for loss of managerial support and their assistance, which the deceased was rendering for carrying out agriculture. 18. Observing that in the case of death of agriculturists, normal rule about deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases fixing monthly income of Rs.3000/-, in 2003 ACJ 1800 [State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "8. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is, however, a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered". 19. Normal rule about the deprivation of income is not directly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source of deceased's or injured's income. In that case, other circumstances have to be considered. The principle laid down in 2003 ACJ 1800 [State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others] was reiterated in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Charlie and Another ( AIR 2005 SC 2157 ). 20. Following the ratio of the above decisions, for the managerial assistance, which the deceased was rendering towards agriculture, a compensation of Rs.2,000/- per month is fixed. 21. The income of the deceased from employment and towards agriculture is calculated at Rs.14,480/- (Rs.12,480/- + Rs.2,000) per month. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses (Rs.4,826), the loss of contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.9,654/-. The deceased was aged 34 years. As per the Second Schedule, multiplier to be adopted is 17. The Tribunal adopted multiplier 17 and the same is maintained. The total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.19,69,416/- (Rs.9654 x 12 x 17). 22. In so far as the conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport/ambulance charges and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and the same are maintained. For loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. At the time of death of deceased, the deceased had three minor children, aged 11 years, 7 years and one year. The minor claimants 2 to 4 have lost the love and affection of their father at the very young age and therefore the loss of love and affection has to be suitably compensated. At the time of death of deceased, the deceased had three minor children, aged 11 years, 7 years and one year. The minor claimants 2 to 4 have lost the love and affection of their father at the very young age and therefore the loss of love and affection has to be suitably compensated. Likewise, claimants 5 and 6 have lost the love and affection of their son at their old age of 75 and 65 years respectively. Considering the young age of the minor claimants and also the age of the parents of the deceased, a sum of Rs.10,000/-each could be awarded to the minor claimants and a sum of Rs.7,500/- each could be awarded to the aged parents and thus a total sum of Rs.45,000/- is awarded as compensation towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-to the 1st claimant towards the loss of consortium and the same is maintained. 23. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.20,44,416/-is awarded to the claimants, the details of which are as under: proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a and the same is maintained. 24. In the result, the compensation amount awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.20,44,416/- and the same is payable with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and the appeal is partly allowed. 25. While ordering notice of motion, this Court granted interim stay of the award passed by the Tribunal subject to condition the appellant deposits a consolidated sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.NO.1461 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore and accordingly the appellant Insurance Company deposited Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, the balance compensation amount as awarded by this Court in this appeal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit, the 1st claimant-wife and claimants 5 and 6 – parents are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to them by this Court together with accrued interest as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the 1st claimant-wife and claimants 5 and 6 – parents are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to them by this Court together with accrued interest as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. The compensation amount awarded to the minor claimants shall be deposited in a nationalised Bank and the 1st claimant – mother is permitted to withdraw interest on the awarded compensation amount of minors quarterly till the minors attain majority. Immediately on attaining majority, 2nd claimant – minor Yogeswari is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount apportioned to her along with accrued interest on filing necessary application before the Tribunal getting herself declared as major. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.