Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- awarded for the death of Gandhimathi in road traffic accident on 25.11.2005, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,75,000/-, Claimants have preferred Cross Objection No.54 of 2012. 2. Brief facts are that on 25.11.2005 at about 10.45 A.M., deceased Gandhimathi was riding her TVS Scooty bearing registration No.TN-39 S 5595 from north to south on Palladam road in Tirupur on the extreme left. At that time, tanker lorry bearing registration No.TCI 8833 owned by the 4th Respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit against the deceased and that the deceased was thrown away. Due to the impact, Gandhimathi sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased Gandhimathi was aged 34 years and was said to be working as General Manager in Roopa Processing, Tirupur and stated to be earning Rs.15,000/-per month. Regarding the accident, a Criminal Case was registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.1139 of 2005 under Section 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. of Tirupur Rural Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the Claimants who are husband, minor son and minor daughter of deceased Gandhimathi have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company filed the counter contending that on 25.11.2005, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a slow speed and that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Eye-witness (Prabhakaran) was examined as P.W.2. Accounts Manager (M.Raja) in Roopa Processing, Tirupur was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P17 were marked on the side of Claimants. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.W.1-1st Claimant, P.W.2-eye witness and referring to Ex.P1-F.I.R. registered against the lorry driver, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. 5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.W.1-1st Claimant, P.W.2-eye witness and referring to Ex.P1-F.I.R. registered against the lorry driver, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Insofar as, quantum of compensation, based on Exs.P8, P9 and P10, Tribunal has taken the average at Rs.6,800/- per month. Adding future prospects, Tribunal multiplied the same by two i.e. Rs.13,600/-. Then adding both the amounts i.e. Rs.13,600/- plus Rs.6800/- at Rs.20,400/- and divided by two, Tribunal calculated the average at Rs.10,200/- and rounding of the same, Tribunal fixed the monthly income of deceased Gandhimathi at Rs.10,000/-. Deducting one-third for personal expenses and adopting multiplier "17", Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.13,60,000/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- as under:- Loss of dependency ... Rs.13,60,000.00 Loss of consortium ... Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of love and affection ... Rs. 1,00,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 5,000.00 Total ... Rs.14,75,000.00 6. Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. It was submitted that as per Exs.P8 to P10, the monthly income of the deceased should have been fixed somewhere around Rs.5000/- - Rs.6,000/- per month and that the compensation of Rs.13,60,000/- awarded under the head “loss of dependency” is excessive. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company would further submit that compensation awarded under conventional damages are also on the higher side. 7. Per contra, Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for Claimants contended that the Claimants have adduced evidence to show that at the time of accident deceased Gandhimathi was working as General Manager in Roopa Processing, Tirupur and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, apart from other perks and based on Exs.P5 and P6, Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- per month. Placing reliance upon (Subodh Kumar and another v. Mohd. Arif and others), learned counsel for Claimants contended that Tribunal ought to have taken judicial notice of the earning capacity of the Chartered Accountant in Government Service after the VI Pay Commission is in the range of Rs.50,000/- per month and while so, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much less and prayed for enhancement of another Rs.5,00,000/-. 8. 8. We have carefully perused the evidence and materials on record and also considered the rival submissions. 9. Upon consideration of rival submissions the point falling for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal warrants interference. 10. Quantum of compensation - Deceased Gandhimathi had completed her Bachelor of Commerce degree in 1990 in Bharathiar University at Coimbatore (Ex.P11). Thereafter, deceased Gandhimathi had done her Chartered Accountancy. As is seen from Ex.P12-Certificate of Service under Articles, Gandhimathi was working as "articled clerk" under R.Sachithanantham, F.C.A. at Tirupur for three years from 30.08.1990 to 30.08.1993 vide Registration No.MM047877 of 1990. Ex.P13 is the Identity Card issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India dated 22.11.1990. Ex.P14 is the certificate granted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Madras Office certifying that deceased Gandhimathi had commenced her "articled" training on 30.8.1990 and undergoing a course of Postal tuition for the Intermediate Examination of the Institute and her enrolment number is MM047877. 11. In his evidence, P.W.1 stated that his wife Gandhimathi was employed as General Manager in Roopa Processing, Tirupur and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. P.W.1 had produced Ex.P5-appointment letter dated 09.05.2005 issued by Roopa Processing, Tirupur. Ex.P6 is the salary certificate (dated 16.12.2005) issued by Roopa Processing, Tirupur. In his evidence, P.W.3-Raja (Accounts Manager of Roopa Processing) stated that Gandhimathi was working as General Manager and that she was paid the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of his evidence that the deceased was paid salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, P.W.3 had produced Ex.P17(series)-vouchers. 12. Exs.P8 to P10 are the SARAL Forms (income tax returns) for the years 2002-2003; 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 respectively and all the three returns were filed only on 27.10.2004. Even though, P.W.1 stated that deceased from her employment as General Manager in Roopa Processing, Tirupur was getting the income of Rs.15,000/-per month, the same was not reflected in Exs.P8 to P10-income tax returns. The details of Exs.P8 to P10 are as follows:- 13. Tribunal held that the signatures of Gandhimathi contained in the vouchers do not tally with the admitted signatures of Gandhimathi in Exs.P8 to P10-income tax returns and Tribunal did not accept Ex.P17(series)-vouchers. We have carefully perused Ex.P17(series)-vouchers and compared the signatures of the deceased Gandhimathi in Ex.P17(series) with that of her admitted signatures in Exs.P8 to P10. Tribunal held that the signatures of Gandhimathi contained in the vouchers do not tally with the admitted signatures of Gandhimathi in Exs.P8 to P10-income tax returns and Tribunal did not accept Ex.P17(series)-vouchers. We have carefully perused Ex.P17(series)-vouchers and compared the signatures of the deceased Gandhimathi in Ex.P17(series) with that of her admitted signatures in Exs.P8 to P10. By comparison we have noted that the signatures contained in Ex.P17(series)-vouchers differ from the admitted signatures in Exs.P8 to P10-Income tax returns. We do not find any reason to take a different view from the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal raising doubts about the signatures of the deceased Gandhimathi in Ex.P17(series)-vouchers. Therefore, Ex.P17(series)-vouchers cannot be taken as basis to hold that Gandhimathi was getting the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. 14. Even though P.W.3 has stated that deceased was working as General Manager in Roopa Processing and that she was getting the salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, the salary register of Roopa Processing for the relevant period was not produced. In the absence of supporting documents, based on the evidence of P.W.3, income of Gandhimathi cannot be fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month. 15. As per Exs.P8 to P10, the annual income of the deceased is at Rs.80,500/- (20022003); Rs.81,000/- (2003-2004) and Rs.83,400/- (2004-2005) respectively. Tribunal has taken the total income at Rs.2,44,900/- and arrived average at Rs.81,633/- per annum and thereafter, calculated the monthly income at Rs.6,800/- per month. Pointing out that Gandhimathi was qualified to be registered as an Auditor and that she had better future prospects, Tribunal has multiplied Rs.6,800/- by two and calculated at Rs.13,600/- and thereafter calculated the average of the same at Rs.10,200/- (Rs.13,600/- plus Rs.6800 = Rs.20,400 ÷ 2 = Rs.10,200) and fixed the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. 16. Future prospects - Placing reliance upon (Subodh Kumar and another v. Mohd. Arif and others), learned counsel for Claimants contended that after VI Pay Commission, the earning capacity of the Chartered Accountant in Government Service is in the range of Rs.50,000/- per month. There is no reason to assume that Chartered Accountant in private service would not draw even half of the said amount. 17. In the said decision, the Delhi High Court was considering the case of death of a final year student of Chartered Accountancy. In Paragraph (15), the Delhi high Court held as under:- "15. .... There is no reason to assume that Chartered Accountant in private service would not draw even half of the said amount. 17. In the said decision, the Delhi High Court was considering the case of death of a final year student of Chartered Accountancy. In Paragraph (15), the Delhi high Court held as under:- "15. .... Even otherwise, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that the earning capacity of a Chartered Accountant in Government service after the Sixth Pay Commission is in the range of Rs.50,000/- per month and there is, therefore, no reason to assume that a Chartered Accountant in private service would not draw even half of the said amount. I, therefore, see no justification for the Tribunal to have brushed aside even the offer letter of M/s.Bajaj Ajay & Co. by terming it to be "a contingent offer letter" and by stating that it was uncertain whether the said offer would have subsisted by the time the deceased completed his Chartered Accountancy and, therefore, no assessment on the basis thereof could be made at this juncture." 18. Observing that the Courts have a duty to award just compensation and that Courts are to take into account the “future prospects”, in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANAOTHER, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court held as under: "24. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, (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 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. (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." Admittedly, Gandhimathi had completed "articled training" and also completed her Intermediate Examination and she was qualified for enrolling her as Chartered Accountant. 19. The income of the deceased has to be taken based on the income tax returns, ofcourse adding “future prospects”. As pointed out earlier, the income of the deceased as per Exs.P8 to P10-income tax returns were Rs.80,500/-; Rs.81,000/- and Rs.83,400/-respectively. Based on that, Tribunal has calculated the average and arrived at the monthly income at Rs.6,800/-. 20. Tribunal also taken into account the “future prospects” and fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. Ofcourse, the Tribunal has adopted a circumvented method of adding “future prospects” by applying the decision in Sarla Dixit v. Balvandh Yadav [1996 ACJ 581 (SC)]. Gandhimathi being aged 34 years at the time of accident and applying the ratio laid down inSarla Verma's case, taking the income of Gandhimathi as Rs.6800/-per month and if we add 50% increase on Rs.6,800/-, i.e. Rs.3,400/-, the total comes to Rs.10,200/- which was the amount arrived at by the Tribunal. Adding “future prospects”, Tribunal calculated the monthly income at Rs.10,200/- per month, rounded of to Rs.10,000/- per month and the same is maintained. 21. Deduction towards personal expenses - Tribunal has deducted one-third for personal expenses. 1st Claimant is the husband and Claimants 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter. Adding “future prospects”, Tribunal calculated the monthly income at Rs.10,200/- per month, rounded of to Rs.10,000/- per month and the same is maintained. 21. Deduction towards personal expenses - Tribunal has deducted one-third for personal expenses. 1st Claimant is the husband and Claimants 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter. In (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), the Supreme Court held 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 of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 22. The question falling for consideration is whether Gandhimathi would have spent one-third of her income on herself. Gandhimathi being a woman would not have spent much on herself. She would have substantially spent the amount for purchase of food grains, milk etc. for the maintenance of the family. Substantial income would have been spent by the Gandhimathi on the education of the children and good part of the income would have been spent for meeting the other family necessities like clothes, medical expenses etc. Therefore, we are of the view that Gandhimathi would have spent one-fourth for her personal expenses. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to deduct one-fourth for personal expenses. 23. Deducting one-fourth i.e. Rs.2,250/- from Rs.10,000/-, the contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.7,750/- per month. As is seen from Ex.P7-Pan Card, the date of birth of Gandhimathi is 11.12.1970. The date of accident is on 25.11.2005 and that at the time of accident, Gandhimathi was aged 34 years. As per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, the multiplier to be adopted is “17" which the Tribunal has adopted and the same is maintained. Taking the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.7,750/- and adopting multiplier "17", the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.15,81,000/- (Rs.7,750 x 12 x 17 = Rs.15,81,000/-) 24. Conventional damages - Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for “loss of consortium”. Taking the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.7,750/- and adopting multiplier "17", the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.15,81,000/- (Rs.7,750 x 12 x 17 = Rs.15,81,000/-) 24. Conventional damages - Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for “loss of consortium”. 1st Claimant being the husband has lost the company of his wife at the young age of 37 years and that the 1st Claimant has deprived of the company of his wife for the rest of his life. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for “loss of consortium” is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 25. Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for “funeral expenses” and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. For loss of “love and affection”, Tribunal awarded to Rs.1,00,000/- and the same is maintained. Thus the total compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,21,000/- as under:- Loss of dependency ... Rs.15,81,000.00 (Rs.7750 x 12 x 17) Loss of consortium ... Rs. 30,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 10,000.00 Love and affection ... Rs. 1,00,000.00 Total ... Rs.17,21,000.00 The enhanced compensation of Rs.17,21,000/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1 to 3 as follows:- (i) 1st Claimant is entitled to Rs.3,21,000/-; (ii) Minor 2nd Claimant is entitled to Rs.7,00,000/-; (iii) Minor 3rd Claimant is entitled to Rs.7,00,000/-. Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the same is maintained. 26. In the result, the compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1357 of 2005 dated 23.11.2007 is enhanced to Rs.17,21,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit and the Cross Objection No.54 of 2012 preferred by the Claimants is partly allowed. C.M.A.No.1499 of 2011 preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed. It was stated before us that the Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- along with accrued interest awarded by the Tribunal. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,46,000/- along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 1st Claimant is permitted to withdraw his share of compensation along with accrued proportionate interest. The compensation awarded to the minor Claimants 2 and 3 is ordered to be invested in any of the nationalised bank till they attain majority. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. There is no order as to costs.