Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A (MD).No.185 of 2010, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar. 2. The petitioner, who are the parents of the deceased Vaigai Kumar, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2008, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-from the respondents, for the death of the said Vaigai Kumar, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 12.04.2008, when the deceased was walking along with his brother-in-law viz., Vijayakumar, on the Madurai road, in order to go to his college namely Kamarajar Engineering College and when he was nearing Chandirareddiapatti traffic juntion, on the extreme left of the road and proceeding towards north the 1st respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TN-39AR-1881, coming in front of him from north towards south and in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the (deceased) Vaigai Kumar and caused the accident. In the impact, the (deceased) Vaigaikumar sustained injuries on his head, right arm, fracture of his left leg and also sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately admitted at the Virudhunagar Government Hospital, but inspite of treatment, he died. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-39AR-1881. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was submitted that the petitioners have to prove that the 1st respondent's vehicle was insured with them under a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the accident had occurred not due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver as alleged in the claim but only due to the negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver?; (2) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation?; If so, what is the quantum of compensation which they are entitled to get?. 5. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver?; (2) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation?; If so, what is the quantum of compensation which they are entitled to get?. 5. On the petitioner's side, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet; Ex.P3-copy of post mortem report dated 12.04.2008; Ex.P4-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report for vehicle bearing registration No.TN-39AR-1881 dated 12.04.2008; Ex.P5-certificate dated 30.05.2006 issued to Vaigai Kumar; Ex.P6-Mark sheet of deceased Vaigai Kumar dated 21.07.2007; Ex.P7-identification card issued to Vaigai Kumar. On the respondents side, no witness, no documents. 6. PW.1, father of the deceased Vaigai Kumar had adduced evidence that his son Vaigai Kumar was aged about 21 years and that he was studying in the 3rd year at Kamarajar Engineering College, at the time of accident. He deposed that on 12.04.2008 at about 09.45 a.m., when the deceased Vaigai Kumar was walking along with Vijayakumar, the brother-in-law of PW.1, in order to proceed to his college and when they were walking on the Madurai road towards Chattirareddiapatti traffic junction, towards north on the left side of the road, the 1st respondents "innova" car bearing registration No.TN-39AR-1881, coming from the opposite direction from south towards north and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against his son, i.e., the (deceased) Vaigaikumar sustained injuries on his head and right arm and fractures in his right leg and that he was admitted in the Virudhunagar Government Hospital, for treatment, He deposed that the (deceased) Vaigaikumar died inspite of getting medical treatment on the same day. 7. The Vijaykumar, who was the eyewitness of the accident, had adduced evidence which was in consonance with the evidence of PW.1, regarding manner of accident. It is seen on scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R that the statements made in the F.I.R are in similar lines to the evidence given by PW.1 and PW.2. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, charge sheet, it is seen that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle. It is seen on scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R that the statements made in the F.I.R are in similar lines to the evidence given by PW.1 and PW.2. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, charge sheet, it is seen that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle. On scrutiny of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report marked as Ex.P4, it is seen that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanical defects in the 1st respondents vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and on observing that no witnesses had been examined on the part of the 2nd respondent to rebut the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, as to the manner of accident, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver. 8. PW.1, had further adduced evidence that at the time of accident, his son was studying in the 3rd year at Kamarajar Engineering College, Virudhunagar, in the Electronics and Communication Engineering Branch and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P5 and P6, this Mark sheets. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the deceased had scored 63.37% and placed in the 1st class. He deposed that he and his wife were wood cutters and that they had high expectations about their son and that they had been put to great hardship due to his death. 9. The Tribunal, on holding that the (deceased) Vaigaikumar, being a 3rd year Engineering student, could have earned Rs.8,000/- per month and deducting 1/3rd of his income for his personal expenses held that the deceased would have contributed Rs.5,350/- per month to the petitioners. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 17', as was relevant to the age of the (deceased) Vaigaikumar, at the time of accident, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,91,400/- (Rs.5,350/- 12x17) to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.11,01,400/- and after rounding it off, awarded a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- to the petitioners. 10. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.11,01,400/- and after rounding it off, awarded a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- to the petitioners. 10. The Tribunal directed the respondents to jointly or severally deposit the said sum of Rs.11,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the dependancy factor has to be assessed on the basis of the age of the claimants only and not on the basis of the age of the deceased and as such the decision of the tribunal to adopt the age of the deceased to assess the future loss of income is erroneous. It was pointed out that the parents of the deceased had limited dependancy on the deceased and as such the tribunal ought to have deducted ½ of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses and as such the decision of the tribunal to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for personal expenses is erroneous. It was also contended that the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month as they failed to take into account that the deceased was an Engineering College student and that the loss of income should be assessed only taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased at the time of death and that the notional income cannot be fixed on the basis of future prospects of the deceased. It was contended that the award of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal was excessive. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased was a brilliant student and he had was placed in the 1st class. It was also pointed out that the deceased would have started earning after one year. The parents of the deceased had lot of expectations on their son's bright future and had expected the deceased to support them monetarily after he completed his education. It was also pointed out that the deceased would have started earning after one year. The parents of the deceased had lot of expectations on their son's bright future and had expected the deceased to support them monetarily after he completed his education. The learned counsel has cited the below mentioned judgments in support of his contentions in 2012 (1) TNMAC 751 in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. S. Rajamanickam. 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that there is a shortcoming in the findings given by the Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation. However, the liability fixed by the tribunal remains unaltered. Hence, this Court, modifies the compensation as follows: The notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.15,000/-per annum, since he was an Engineering student, who was studying only in the 3rd ear. This Court awards a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- (Rs.15,000x1/2x17) under the head of loss of income; Rs.50,000/-each is awarded to the each of the claimants under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-is awarded transport expenses; Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate, since the deceased was a 3rd year Engineering student and after one year, he would eater into a highly paid field as an engineer. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.6,47,500/-as compensation to the petitioners, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 14. On 08.02.2010, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount with accrued interest and costs. Now, this court directs the appellants to pay the balance compensation, as per this Court's order, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. The compensation amount will be apportioned as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. 15. Now, this court directs the appellants to pay the balance compensation, as per this Court's order, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. The compensation amount will be apportioned as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. 15. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals, made if any. 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed inM.C.O.P.No.65 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, is modified, dated 24.07.2009. No costs.