Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.18,81,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Thiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2007 for the death of deceased Kotteeswaran in the road traffic accident on 5.10.2006, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 5.10.2006 at about 6.00 P.M, when the deceased Kotteeswaran was proceeding along with his mother Saroja and one Mani from his native place Pootuthakku towards Vellore in a car bearing Regn. No. TN 01 H 7029 belonging to the 4th respondent and insured with the 5th respondent, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN 23 A 9250 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the appellant came from opposite direction towards Arcot driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Cement median wall put up on the centre of the road and further dashed against the Car bearing Regn.No.TN 01 H 7029 driven by the deceased Kotteeswaran near Vellore Rangapuram Kalaimagal Petrol Bunk in Chennai and Bangalore National Highways Road. On account of the said impact, the deceased Koteswaran, Sarojammal and Mani died on the spot. Regarding the accident, a case in Crime No.539/2006 under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC was registered on the file of Sathuvacheri Police Station against the lorry driver. The deceased Koteswaran was aged 45 years at the time of accident and working as Senior Grade Teacher and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the family has lost the support of their bread winner, the claimants – respondents 1 and 2 – wife and son have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the claim petition, the 3rd respondent – owner of the lorry has filed counter stating that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 23 A 9250 possessed valid driving licence and he had driven the vehicle carefully and the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. 4. The appellant Insurance Company filed counter denying the nature of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased besides contending that the deceased had driven his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry which was being driven by its driver slowly and cautiously. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the claim is excessive. 5. The 5th respondent Insurance Company filed counter denying the nature of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased besides contending that the respondent would be liable to pay compensation only if the vehicle involved in the accident is validly insured with it and there is no violation of the conditions and that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 6. To substantiate the claim, the 1st respondent/ 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witnesses – Jayachandiran and Jeevanandam were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. On the side of claimants, Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked. On the side of appellant Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and the evidence of eye witness, 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 for the death of deceased. Based upon Ex.P.8 – salary certificate of the deceased, wherein the gross income of the deceased is stated as Rs.14,886/- and after taking into consideration the future prospects, fixed a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as income of deceased. Deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived at an annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,44,000/-. Taking into consideration the age of deceased, by adopting the multiplier 13, the Tribunal has arrived at a sum of Rs.18,72,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first claimant-wife; Rs.2,000/- towards love and affection to the second claimant-son and another sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.18,81,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, payable by the owner and appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.18,81,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, payable by the owner and appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally. From out of the total compensation amount, a sum of Rs.10,81,000/- was awarded to the first claimant-wife and a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was awarded to the second claimant-wife by permitting the first claimant-wife to receive 40% of her share amount. The balance amount awarded to the first claimant and the amount awarded to the second claimant were directed to be invested in a nationalised Bank by permitting the first claimant to withdraw interest accrued from the amount awarded to the second claimant and her balance share once in three months. 8. Though the Insurance Company has filed the appeal challenging the negligence fastening liability as well as quantum, at the time when the arguments were heard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Company confined his submissions mainly to the quantum. It is therefore not necessary to refer to the manner of accident and as to who was responsible for the accident and fastening of liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. 9. The deceased Kotteeswaran was aged 48 years at the time of accident and he was working as Senior Second Grade Teacher and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Ex.P.8 is the salary certificate in which the monthly gross income of the deceased is stated as Rs.14,886/-. As per Ex.P.7 Service Register extract, the date of birth of the deceased was 21.5.1961 which means that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case [(2009) 6 SCC 121] = [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ], in respect of compensation for the deceased persons in the age group of 40-50, for the future prospects, an addition of 30% has to be added. Since the deceased was aged 45 years, following the ratio laid down in the decision of Sarla Verama case, for future prospects, addition of 30% has to be awarded i.e., to the gross income of the deceased i.e., Rs.14,886/- 30% of the said amount being Rs.4,200 has to be added i.e., Rs.19,086/-. However, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.18,000/- and the same is maintained. However, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.18,000/- and the same is maintained. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses of deceased. The Tribunal has not chosen to deduct any amount towards income tax. As per the decisions of 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)), 20% of the income has to be deducted towards income-tax. Deducting 20% (Rs.3,600/-) from the monthly income of deceased(Rs.18,000/-), the income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.14,400 (Rs.18,000 – Rs.3,600). It has been consistently held by the Honourable Supreme Court that for personal deduction 1/3rd deduction has to be made. Therefore, from the income of deceased arrived at Rs.14,400/-, 1/3rd deduction has to be made towards personal expenses. Deducting 1/3rd (Rs.4,800/-), loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.9,600/- per month. As pointed out earlier, the deceased was aged 45 years. As per the Second Schedule, proper multiplier to be adopted is 13 and accordingly the total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.14,97,600/- (Rs.9,600 x 12 x 13). 10. Insofar as conventional damages, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards consortium to the first claimant-wife; Rs.2,000/- towards love and affection to the second claimant-son and another sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The first claimant has lost the consortium of her husband at the age of 40 and she has to be without the affection of her husband for rest of her life. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (3) CTC 883, substantial amount has to be ordered towards loss of consortium. Considering the age of the first claimant, a sum of Rs.75,000/-is awarded towards loss of consortium. The 2nd claimant has lost his father at the young age of 11 and as such he has lost the love and affection and care of the father for the rest of his life. Considering the age of the second claimant, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of only Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and the same is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the age of the second claimant, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of only Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and the same is enhanced to an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The deceased died on the sport and therefore the body was brought from the place of accident to the native place and therefore a sum of Rs.18,000/-is awarded towards transport expenses. The compensation of Rs.18,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.17,00,600/-as under: Loss of Dependency Rs.14,97,600.00 Loss of consortium Rs.75,000.00 Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000.00 Financial expenses Rs.10,000.00 Transport Expenses Rs.18,000.00 Total Rs.17,00,000.00 The above compensation amount of Rs.17,00,600/-awarded is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The reduced compensation is to be apportioned amongst the claimants in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 11. It is stated that the appellant -Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest as ordered by the Tribunal. Out of the said amount, the first claimant is said to have withdrawn 50% of the compensation amount apportioned to her along with accrued interest. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount of the reduced compensation amount apportioned to her after deducting the amount already withdrawn by her along with accrued interest. So far as the compensation amount payable to the 2nd claimant, the same shall be invested in a nationalised Bank under re-investment scheme. The second claimant is also permitted to withdraw the compensation amount apportioned to his share on attaining majority on filing necessary application before the Tribunal for getting himself declared as major. The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess compensation amount along with the proportionate accrued interest. However, there is no order as to costs.