Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.26,28,800/- in M.C.O.P.No.211 of 2006 dated 12.10.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4), Bhavani, for the death of deceased S.K.Chandrasekar, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts are as under: On 14.10.2005, at about 3.45 p.m, when the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 36 C 5677 from north to south on the left side of the Kovai to Salem NH 47 Main Road, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 28 Y 4851, being driven by the 5th respondent, proceeded from south to north with uncontrollable high speed and in a negligent manner and when reached near National Dairy Development Road, it hit against the deceased and ran over him and stopped at eastern side ditch. Due to the accident, the deceased died on the spot. A case in Crime No.506 of 2005 was registered on the file of Chithode Police Station for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as Head of Department in BBM Department in Vasavi College and earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as salary and also getting a sum of Rs.62,000/- from agriculture and totally the deceased was getting Rs.80,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the owner of the lorry and insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation, the claimants, who are the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased, have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. 3. Denying the manner of accident and alleging that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased Chandrasekar, the appellant Insurance Company filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the appellant Insurance Company has also denied the avocation of the deceased and also his income from being the Lecturer in Vasavi College and also his income from tuition and agriculture. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant – wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness – Sivashanmugam was examined as P.W.2. The Office Superintendent and Junior Assistant of Vasavi College were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. Exs.A.1 to A.24 were marked on the side of the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant – wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness – Sivashanmugam was examined as P.W.2. The Office Superintendent and Junior Assistant of Vasavi College were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. Exs.A.1 to A.24 were marked on the side of the respondents. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, and also the evidence of eye witness – P.W.2, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and held that the owner and driver of the lorry and also the insurer of the lorry viz., the appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, based upon Ex.A.19 - salary certificate, the Tribunal has taken Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,772/- rounded off to Rs.10,000/-) as the salary of the deceased as Lecturer; Rs.4,000/- as income for handing Distance Education classes and Rs.6,000/- from agriculture, totally Rs.20,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses therefrom, Tribunal has calculated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.13,400/- per month. The Tribunal adopted multiplier 16 and calculated total loss of dependency at Rs.25,72,800/-. Awarding conventional damages of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively for funeral expenses and transportation expenses, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.26,28,800/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The Insurance Company has not disputed the finding of the Tribunal on the negligence of the lorry driver and fastening of the liability upon the owner of the lorry and the appellant Insurance Company. Only the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants is under challenge. 7. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- without any acceptable evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the agricultural lands stand in the name of the father of the deceased and in any event the deceased, having worked as Lecturer in the College and also taking the tuition, would not have contributed any physical labour towards agriculture nor would have rendered any managerial assistance and while so the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.6,000/- as agricultural income. Learned counsel also submitted that without any positive evidence Tribunal erred in taking the income from tuition at Rs.4,000/- per month. 8. Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for respondents/ claimants submitted that even though the Tribunal had taken the salary income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, erred in not making any additions towards future prospects, which is not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ANOTHER – 2009 ACJ 1298 . The learned counsel submitted that apart from working as Lecturer and taking tuition the deceased was also rendering assistance in agriculture and therefore Tribunal was right in fixing the income from agriculture at Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that in any event, the income from the agriculture could be taken as the income towards the future prospects as per the decision of Sarla Verma's case, ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the documents. 10. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was working as Head of the Department in the Department of Business Management in Vasavi College, Erode and that he was getting salary of more than Rs.10,000/-. P.W.1 has also stated that the deceased had the future prospects of getting further promotion and getting more income. Ex.A.19 is the salary certificate from which it is seen that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.8772/-. Deducting Rs.1,344/- towards Provident fund, he was getting net salary of Rs.7428/-. As the deceased was working as Head of the Department and also working as Lecturer, the Tribunal has taken the salary at Rs.10,000/- per month (rounding off Rs.8,772/-). To substantiate the salary income of the deceased, the claimants have also examined P.W.3 – Office Superintendent of Vasavi College and in his evidence, P.W.3 has stated that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.8,772/- per month and his evidence is amply supported by Ex.A.19. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in taking the salary income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. 11. The College in which the deceased was working was affiliated to Bhrathiyar University, Coimbtore. Deceased was working as Head of the Department of Business Management and was having a permanent job and the deceased was aged 36 years. 11. The College in which the deceased was working was affiliated to Bhrathiyar University, Coimbtore. Deceased was working as Head of the Department of Business Management and was having a permanent job and the deceased was aged 36 years. As per the decision in Sarla Verma's case, ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), the Tribunal ought to have made addition towards future prospects as the deceased was in the age group of 30-40 and also having the permanent income. Following the ratio of Sarla Verma's case, ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), it is appropriate to add Rs.5,000/- per month towards future prospects. 12. The deceased Chandrasekar was also getting honorarium for taking PCB Classes during week ends for M.B.A.Course at the School of Distance Education in the Self Finance Wing of Sri Vasavi College in the centre. P.W.4 has spoken about honorarium paid to the deceased Chandrasekar for handling the classes at the School of Distance Education. Evidence of P.W.4 is strengthened by Ex.A.20 – certificate issued by Sri Vasavi College, Self Finance Wing. As per Ex.A.20, it is seen that the deceased was getting Rs.2,450/- in 2002-2003, Rs.5,450/- in 2003-04, Rs.8,250/- in 2004-05 and Rs.10,700/- in 2005-2006. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased from the classes held at the Centre for Distance Education/tuition at Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the deceased was getting only lesser amount as honorarium for handling the classes at School of Distance Education and same is also a variable one, we are of the view that the income of Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal can be reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly the same is reduced. 13. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased from agriculture at Rs.4,000/-per month. Claimants have produced Ex.A.17 - patta pass book, which stands in the name of father of the deceased. The claimants have also produced the xerox copy of the sale deeds - Exs.P.10 to P.15 and stated that the deceased was living as a joint family along with his father and rendering valuable assistance in the agriculture. Claimants have produced Ex.A.17 - patta pass book, which stands in the name of father of the deceased. The claimants have also produced the xerox copy of the sale deeds - Exs.P.10 to P.15 and stated that the deceased was living as a joint family along with his father and rendering valuable assistance in the agriculture. Even though the claimants have stated that the deceased was also rendering assistance in agriculture, the deceased, having worked as a lecturer in Vasavi College and also handling classes during the weekends at the School of Distance Education organised by Sri Vasavi College, we are of the view that the deceased would not have found much time for assisting his father in agriculture. Even if he has rendered assistance it would have been minimal and the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the income of deceased from agriculture at Rs.6,000/-. As per the decision of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Charlie and another, ( AIR 2005 SC 2157 ), in case of agricultural lands, with the death of the deceased, there is no deprivation of agricultural income so as to award compensation based on the loss of income from the agriculture. All the more so, when the deceased Chandrasekar was working as a full-time lecturer in an affiliated college. Under these circumstances, the income of deceased from agriculture fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is not justified and the same is to be deleted. 14. The total income of the deceased is calculated at Rs.18,000/-. (salary – Rs.10,000/-+ future prospects – Rs.5,000/-+ honorarium/tuition at the School of Distance Education – Rs.3,000/-). Deducting 1/3rd therefrom for personal expenses i.e., Rs.6,000/- the monthly income of the deceased is calculated at Rs.12,000/-. 15. The deceased was aged 36 years. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the proper multiplier to be adopted for the age group of 35-40 is 16 and the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier 16 and the same is maintained. Therefore, the loss of contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.23,04,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 12 x 16). 16. So far as conventional damages, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. At the time of accident, the second minor claimant – daughter was aged 7 years. Therefore, the loss of contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.23,04,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 12 x 16). 16. So far as conventional damages, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. At the time of accident, the second minor claimant – daughter was aged 7 years. Considering the age of the second minor claimant, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant-wife. The first claimant was aged only 29 years at the time of accident and the 1st claimant has become widow at the very young age of 29 years. Considering the age of the first claimant and the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to enhance the compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to Rs.50,000/- and the same is enhanced accordingly. So far as the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- awarded towards funeral and transport charges respectively are maintained. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is reduced to Rs.24,60,000/- fromRs.26,28,800/-, the details of which are as under:- Loss of dependency : Rs.23,04,000/- (12,000 x 12 x 16) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 50,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Transport expenses : Rs. 1,000/- ------------------ Total : Rs.24,60,000/- The reduced compensation of Rs.24,60,000/- has to be apportioned among the claimants proportionately as per the ratio of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. In the result, the award dated 12.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.211 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), No.4, Bhavani, Erode District is modified and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The quantum of compensation of Rs.26,28,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.24,60,000/-, which is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing petition. The reduced compensation is to be apportioned among the claimants in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 18. It is stated that the appellant -Insurance Company has deposited 75% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with accrued interest. The reduced compensation is to be apportioned among the claimants in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 18. It is stated that the appellant -Insurance Company has deposited 75% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with accrued interest. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance modified compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of coy of this judgment. The claimants, 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount apportioned to them as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal. In so far as compensation payable to the minor daughter - 2nd claimant, the same shall be invested in a nationalised Bank and the mother -first claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest therefrom once in three months directly from the Bank. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.