Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also apportionment of liability, the Insurance Companies have filed C.M.A.Nos.3303 and 3261 of 2010 respectively. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have filed Cross Objection No.18 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.3261 of 2010 for enhancement. Since both appeals and Cross Objection arise out of the same Award, appeals and Cross Objection were taken up and heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in C.M.A.No.3303 of 2010 filed by Oriental Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts are that on 09.11.2003, deceased Gopal @ Gopalakrishnan along with his friends were travelling in Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.TN-38 Q 5483 from Mazhampula to Coimbatore from south to north and the car was driven by Sri Hari. At about 5.00 P.M., when they were nearing Sugunapuram Panchayat School, the TVS 50 XL motorcycle bearing registratin No.TN-37 L 3193 was moving on the road. In order to avoid the accident with TVS 50 motorcycle, driver of Fiat Palio car turn the vehicle on the right side. At that time, the Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363 came in the opposite direction and unfortunately, the Fiat Palio car dashed against the Ford Ikon car. Due to the impact, Fiat Palio car fell upside down and Gopal @ Gopalakrishnan, driver Sri Hari and other occupants Sathish, Thirunavukkarasu and Sudhakar sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, all the injured were taken to CMC Hospital, Coimbatore for treatment. On examination the Doctor declared Gopalakrishnan, Sri Hari and Sudhakar succumbed to injuries. Regarding the accident, criminal case was registered in Crime No.642 of 2003 under Sections 279, 304(A) I.P.C. on the file of Podanur Police Station against the driver of Fiat Palio car. At the time of accident, deceased Gopalakrishnan was doing business of textiles and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and he was an income tax assessee. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Fiat Palio car (deceased Sri Hari), the Claimants have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of Fiat Palio car and also the insurer of Ford Ikon car. 3. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Fiat Palio car (deceased Sri Hari), the Claimants have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of Fiat Palio car and also the insurer of Ford Ikon car. 3. Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company with whom Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363 was insured and referring to the recitals in the FIR has filed counter stating that Sri Hari who was driving the Fiat Palio car. It was averred that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Sri Hari, Fiat Palio car fell upside down and the accident speaks for itself indicating the negligent driving of the Fiat Palio car. It was further averred that since the owner of Ford Ikon car was not impleaded as a party, the Appellant-Insurance Company insurer of Ford Ikon car is not vicariously liable to pay the compensation. It has also denied age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. After filing the counter by the Appellant-Insurance Company, Claimants have impleaded the owner of Ford Ikon car as 4th Respondent in the Claim Petition. 5. 5th Respondent-Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, insurer of Fiat Palio car has filed the counter stating that only to avoid hitting the TVS 50 (TN-37 L 3193), the driver of Fiat Palio car slowly swerved to right side and the rider of TVS 50 is solely responsible for the accident. In the additional counter, it was averred that deceased Gopalakrishnan was a gratuitous passenger in Fiat Palio car and the policy of the car does not cover gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the 5th Respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the Claimants. It has also denied age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 6. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant -Selvarani examined herself as P.W.1. Shanmugam, auditor of Gopalakrishnan was examined as P.W.2. Yuvaraj-Eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A41 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Respondents, Murugasamy, the then Division Manager of Appellant-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. Vaitheeswaran, then Administrator (Legal) of 5th Respondent-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2. Jayaprakash, driver of Ford Ikon car was examined R.W.3. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 7. Exs.A1 to A41 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Respondents, Murugasamy, the then Division Manager of Appellant-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. Vaitheeswaran, then Administrator (Legal) of 5th Respondent-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2. Jayaprakash, driver of Ford Ikon car was examined R.W.3. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 7. Upon consideration of oral evidence of P.W.3 and referring to the recitals in Ex.A1-FIR, Tribunal held that Fiat Palio car was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Referring to Ex.A13-plan and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, Tribunal held that R.W.3, driver of Ford Ikon car could have stopped the car on the left side of the road and could have avoided the accident. Tribunal held that R.W.3, driver of Ford Ikon stopped the car in the middle of the road and thus contributed to the accident. Holding that deceased Gopalakrishnan was the occupant in Fiat Palio car and rejecting the contention of 5th Respondent-Insurance Company that the deceased was only a gratuitous passenger, Tribunal held that 5th Respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay two-third compensation and Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay one-third compensation payable to the Claimants. Insofar as quantum of compensation, Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- i.e. Rs.1,92,000/-as annual income and since deceased Gopalakrishnan was a bachelor, deducting 50% towards personal expenses, Tribunal has calculated the annual contribution to the family at Rs.96,000/- and adopting multiplier 13, Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.12,48,000/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded totally compensation of Rs.12,88,000/-. 8. Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company, insurer of Ford Ikon car has submitted that Tribunal failed to appreciate the categorical case of Claimants that the driver of Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.TN-38 Q 5483 was solely negligent and responsible for the accident and Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex.A1-FIR and other evidence and erred in fixing one-third on Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363. 9. Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel for 5th Respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.TN-38 Q 5483 has submitted that Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363. 9. Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel for 5th Respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.TN-38 Q 5483 has submitted that Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363. It was submitted that Tribunal having clearly found that the Ford Ikon car was stopped on the middle of the road and that there was head on collision, went wrong in holding that the driver of the Ford Ikon car was responsible only to an extent of one-third. 10. We have heard Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants and considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials on record. 11. Sri Hari, who also died in the accident was the driver of Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.TN-38 Q 5483 in which the deceased Gopal @ Gopalakrishnan was travelling. Claimants have examined eye-witness P.W.3. In his evidence, P.W.3 has stated that when Ford Ikon car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363 was proceeding in Coimbatore-Palakad road from south to north, near Karunapuram Panchayat school, TVS-50 bearing registration No.TN-37 L 3193 came in the middle of the road and to avoid hitting on the TVS-50, the Fiat Palio car slowly swerved to the right and at that time, the Ford Ikon car driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and hit against Fiat Palio car. Due to the impact. Fiat Palio car fell upside down and the occupants of the car including Gopalakrishnan sustained grievous injuries. All the injured were taken to the hospital where the Doctor declared that Gopalakrishnan, Sri Hari and Sudhakar succumbed to the injuries. In their evidence, P.W.1, mother of the deceased and P.W.3-eye witness to the accident have stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Ford Ikon car driver. 12. The driver of Ford Ikon car was examined as R.W.3. In his evidence, R.W.3 has stated that he was driving the car bearing registration No.KL-07 AN 0363 slowly and only because the Fiat Palio car swerved to the right side and on seeing the car, R.W.3 stopped his car and he was no way responsible for the accident and that the accident was solely due to the negligent driving of Fiat Palio car bearing registration No.TN-38 Q 5483 by Sri Hari. 13. 13. Ex.A1-FIR was registered based on the complaint given by Gurumurthy, who was the occupant of Fiat Palio car. In his complaint, Gurumurthy has stated that Sri Hari was speedily driving the car and that to avoid hitting on the TVS-50 motorcycle, Sri Hari swerved the Fiat Palio car and at that time, the accident happened. In Ex.A1-FIR, Gurumurthy has stated that the accident was due to the speed driving of Fiat Palio car driver. 14. In the absence of adducing evidence, the recitals in Ex.A1-FIR cannot be taken as a substantive evidence to fasten entire negligence on the driver of Fiat Palio car. While considering the collision of two vehicles, the manner in which the accident happened is to be examined with reference to Ex.A13-plan and other evidences and the negligence aspect is to be considered based on the evidence. 15. By perusal of Ex.A13-plan, it is seen that R.W.3 stopped his Ford Ikon car in the middle of the road. When the vehicles are proceeding in the highways, the drivers should anticipate that the vehicles coming in the opposite direction swerving to the right side and should adopt defensive driving. R.W.3 does not seem to have adopted such defensive driving. That apart, since the other vehicle driver Sri Hari died, no evidence could be adduced as to how Sri Hari took care in avoiding the accident. In the absence of any defence evidence, the major portion of the liability cannot be apportioned on the driver of Fiat Palio car. It is seen that in the accident both the cars sustained damages in the front side. Having regard to the fact that R.W.3 driver of Ford Ikon has also equally contributed in the accident, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to fix liability upon both the cars in the ratio 50% : 50%. 16. Learned counsel for Appellant and 5th Respondent-Insurance Companies have drawn our attention to the Common Award in the connected M.C.O.P.Nos.870 of 2004, 569 to 571 of 2005 (20.1.2007) on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer), Coimbatore. M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004 was the Claim Petition filed by the parents of Sri Hari, who was driving Fiat Palio car and the other Claim Petitions were filed by the other Claimants, who sustained injuries in the accident. M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004 was the Claim Petition filed by the parents of Sri Hari, who was driving Fiat Palio car and the other Claim Petitions were filed by the other Claimants, who sustained injuries in the accident. After discussing the evidence adduced, in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004, Tribunal observed that Fiat Palio car driver and Ford Ikon car driver contributed the negligence equally for cause of the accident and held that the insurer of Fiat Palio car (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company) and Ford Ikon car (Oriental Insurance Company) are liable to pay 50% of the total compensation each to the Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004. While holding both the drivers equally responsible for the accident, in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004 the Tribunal observed as under :- "Therefore, the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.870/2004 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,33,500/- for the loss of life of the deceased Srihari. Since the Fiat Palio car and Fork Ikon car contributed negligence equally for the cause of the accident, respondents 1 to 3 and 7 and 8 are equally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners." 17. Placing reliance upon the award made in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004, the learned counsel for Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company (Appellant in C.M.A.No.3261 of 2010) prayed that the ratio of one-third and two-third apportioned by the Tribunal in the present Claim Petition is to the apportioned in the ratio of 50% : 50% amongst the Appellant-Insurance Company and the 5th Respondent-Insurance Company. 18. Per contra, the learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Company (Appellant in C.M.A.No.3303 of 2010) has submitted that in the above said M.C.O.P.Nos.569 to 571 of 2005, the entire negligence has been fastened upon Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company - insurer of Fiat Palio car and therefore, in the present case also the entire liability has to be fastened upon Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company. Learned counsel submitted that Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company - insurer of Fiat Palio car has paid the entire compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.569 to 571 of 2005 and submitted that the said Insurance Company had also accepted the same. 19. By perusal of the Common Award in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004, it is seen that in the other connected M.C.O.P.Nos.569 to 571 of 2005, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was low between Rs.7,000/-; Rs.11,500/- and Rs.8,000/-respectively. 19. By perusal of the Common Award in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004, it is seen that in the other connected M.C.O.P.Nos.569 to 571 of 2005, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was low between Rs.7,000/-; Rs.11,500/- and Rs.8,000/-respectively. Since the amount awarded in the other connected Claim Petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.569 to 571 of 2005 were less amount, perhaps, the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company - insurer of Fiat Palio car might not have challenged those Award in M.C.O.P.Nos.569 to 571 of 2005. The fact that no appeal has been preferred against those Awards in M.C.O.P.Nos.569 to 571 of 2005 cannot be put against the insurer of Fiat Palio car. Our view is also fortified by the observation made by the Tribunal in the other connected M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2004 which was the Claim Petition filed by the parents of Sri Hari, who was driving Fiat Palio car. Therefore, as discussed earlier, we hold that both Fiat Palio car and Ford Ikon car contributed the negligence equally in the accident in the ratio of 50% : 50%. 20. Insofar as quantum of compensation, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company and 5th Respondent-Insurance Company contended that Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- and failed to appreciate that the deceased Gopalakrishnan was only aged 22 years and that he was a student pursuing his studies though he was shown to be a partner of several businesses. It was submitted that deceased did not actively pursue the business by himself and that the businesses were run by other partners. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal failed to appreciate that the alleged businesses in which the deceased was a partner were still continued by the other partners and that there was no loss of income to the Claimants and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive warranting interference. 21. Taking us through the documents and evidence of P.W.2, learned counsel for Claimants submitted that Tribunal erred in awarding meagre compensation when the evidence is very clear about the income earned by the deceased Gopalakrishnan. It was submitted that at the time of accident deceased was looking after the lorry business, was partner in M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles and was also looking after the agricultural fields owned by him. It was submitted that at the time of accident deceased was looking after the lorry business, was partner in M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles and was also looking after the agricultural fields owned by him. If the deceased been alive, he would have developed his business in all aspects and would have earned more and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and prayed for enhancement. 22. Tribunal observed that deceased Gopalakrishnan would have earned Rs.10,000/-per month from business; Rs.2,000/-per month from operating lorry. Tribunal had also observed that deceased was getting rental income at Rs.2,000/-per month and another Rs.2,000/- from agriculture. Tribunal has taken monthly income at Rs.16,000/-. Tribunal has deducted 50% for personal expenses and calculated the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/-per annum. Based on the age of the 1st Claimant, Tribunal had fixed the multiplier "13". Adopting multiplier "13", Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.12,88,000/-. 23. Learned counsel for Claimants Mr. Lakshminarayanan submitted that Tribunal has not kept in view the various oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Claimants showing that Gopalakrishnan was doing business and also getting rental income and contributing in agricultural operations and that the monthly income of the deceased taken at Rs.16,000/- per month by the Tribunal is very less and prayed for enhancement. Placing reliance upon 2012 ACJ 2002 (Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), the learned counsel for Claimants submitted that Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier based on the age of the deceased. 24. Deceased Gopalakrishnan studied B.C.A. in Loyola College, Chennai and thereafter he was studying Master of International Business in P.S.G. College, Coimbatore. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that even when he was student, deceased Gopalakrishnan was doing business by partnership in Kandan Palani Textiles and also purchased lorry in his name bearing registration No.KA-01 AB 2050. According to P.W.1, deceased had also let the house for rent and getting rental income. It was stated that deceased Gopalakrishnan was an income tax assessee and for the assessment year 2003-04, he had paid income tax of Rs.6,642/-(Ex.A39). In her evidence, P.W.1 further stated that deceased was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month and prayed for enhancement. 25. According to P.W.1, deceased had also let the house for rent and getting rental income. It was stated that deceased Gopalakrishnan was an income tax assessee and for the assessment year 2003-04, he had paid income tax of Rs.6,642/-(Ex.A39). In her evidence, P.W.1 further stated that deceased was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month and prayed for enhancement. 25. By perusal of Ex.A22, it is seen that Gopalakrishnan studied Bachelor of Computer Applications in Loyola College, Chennai and from the perusal of Ex.A23, he was doing the Post Graduate in International Business in PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. As is seen from Ex.A4, deceased Gopalakrishnan was partner in M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles along with two other partners and having one-third share in the business. Ex.A7 is the income tax return of M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles, Komarapalayam for the assessment year 2003-2004, as per which M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles partnership had annual income of Rs.5,070/-. As pointed out earlier, deceased Gopalakrishnan was a partner in M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles having only one-third share and profit in the partnership business and while so, the Tribunal was not right in taking the income from business at Rs.10,000/-. That apart, deceased Gopalakrishnan being the student pursuing his Pot Graduation could not have spent his whole time on business. Considering Ex.A7-income tax return of M/s. Kandan Palani Textiles for the assessment year 2003-2004, the income of the deceased from the business is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. 26. Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.2,000/-per month from lorry transport business. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that as per Ex.A21-Invoice, Gopalakrishnan had purchased lorry bearing registration No.KA-01 AB 2050 and was operating on hire and as per Ex.A27, Gopalakrishnan was earning more amount from lorry transport business. Ex.A27 is the statement of income of deceased for the period from 1.4.2003 to 9.11.2003 where the total income from the lorry transport business for the period of 7 months is stated as Rs.24,500/-. Considering Ex.A21-Invoice for purchase of lorry by the deceased and also Ex.A27-statement of income, it would appropriate to fix an amount of Rs.6,000/-per month from lorry transport business. Accordingly, Rs.6,000/- per month is fixed from lorry transport business. 27. Coming to the agricultural income, P.W.1 has stated that deceased was also doing agriculture and getting more income. Considering Ex.A21-Invoice for purchase of lorry by the deceased and also Ex.A27-statement of income, it would appropriate to fix an amount of Rs.6,000/-per month from lorry transport business. Accordingly, Rs.6,000/- per month is fixed from lorry transport business. 27. Coming to the agricultural income, P.W.1 has stated that deceased was also doing agriculture and getting more income. To prove that deceased Gopalakrishnan possessed agricultural lands in his name, Claimants have produced Exs.A17 to A20sale deeds. Since Gopalakrishnan was attending his Post Graduate Degree in International Business, he could not have much contributed to the agricultural operations, but he could have only contributed his managerial assistance and other assistance during his leisure time. 28. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that normal rule of deprivation of income will not arise in a case of death of agriculturist. At the most, Claimants would be entitled only nominal charges for the assistance rendered by the deceased towards maintaining the lands and marketing the agricultural products. Therefore, we are of the view that loss could be determined only based on the managerial assistance, for which, it would appropriate to fix the loss at Rs.1,000/-per month. 29. Tribunal has taken Rs.2,000/-as rental income by letting the house for rent. Considering the fact that the house continues to be vested with the family of the deceased. There is no question of loss of rental income for the death of deceased Gopalakrishnan. Thus, the total income of deceased is taken at Rs.12,000/-i.e. Rs.5,000/- from partnership business; Rs.6,000/-from operating lorry transport business and Rs.1,000/- from agriculture on the managerial assistance. 30. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121, in the case of Central and State Government employees and their agencies/instrumentalities, additions are to be made for future prospects., In the said case, it was held that when the deceased victim was below 40 years, an addition of 50% is to be made to the actual income of deceased while computing future prospects. In (2012) 6 SCC 421 (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), the principle laid down in Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121 was made applicable to the persons engaged in private sectors and also self employed and persons on fixed ages. 31. In (2012) 6 SCC 421 (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), the principle laid down in Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121 was made applicable to the persons engaged in private sectors and also self employed and persons on fixed ages. 31. As pointed out, even in cases where the deceased was self-employed or employed in Private Sector or unorganised Organisation, for future prospects additions are to be made. It is pertinent to note that Tribunal has not given any increase for future prospects. 32. In (2012) 6 SCC 421 (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), it was held as under :- "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naove to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. 15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh. 17. Although the wages/income of those employed in unorganised sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the government employees and those employed in private sectors, but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla Verma2 judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. Same is the view reiterated in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and others, 2013 (2) CTC 680 and Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (6) SCALES 563. 33. As per the said decisions, even where the deceased was self employed or employee in private sector or unorganised organisation, for future prospects, additions are to be made. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- and since the deceased was aged 22 years, giving 50% addition for future prospects i.e. Rs.6,000/-, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.18,000/- (Rs.12,000/-plus Rs.6,000/-). 34. As per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Deducting 50% towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.9,000/- (Rs.18,000 Rs.9,000/-), the contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.9,000/- per month and the annual contribution at Rs.1,08,000/-. 35. Learned counsel for the Claimants placing reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in 2012 ACJ 2002 (Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), submitted that the age of the deceased could be taken into consideration in the case of death of a bachelor in the accident and submitted that since the deceased was aged 22 years on the date of accident, multiplier 18 has to be adopted. 36. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company and 5th Respondent-Insurance Company submitted that consistently the Supreme Court had taken the view that choice of multiplier would depend upon the age of the deceased or the age of the Claimant, which ever is higher and therefore submitted that only age of the parents is to be taken for adopting the multiplier in this case. 37. In Amrit Bhanu Shali's case, the Supreme Court held that selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. 37. In Amrit Bhanu Shali's case, the Supreme Court held that selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. In this regard, useful reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra), wherein it has been held that in the case of death of a bachelor the age of the parents would be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. Consistently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008) 2 SCC 667 (Ramesh Singh v. Satbir Singh) held that the choice of multiplier would depend upon the age of the deceased or the age of the Claimant, whichever is higher. 38. As pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court had consistently taken the view that the choice of the multiplier would depend upon the age of the deceased or age of the Claimants which ever is higher. Having regard to the age of the parents and following the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Tribunal has adopted multiplier "13", which in our considered view is the correct multiplier. Thus the loss of contribution to the family is calculated at Rs.14,04,000/- (Rs.1,08,000 x 13 = Rs.14,04,000/-. 39. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- for loss of love and affection. Considering the fact that 1st Claimant-mother and 2nd Claimant -father have lost their son at their age of 43 and 49 respectively and also 3rd Claimant-brother at his young age of 23 years, we are of the view that Rs.30,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. Considering the fact that immediately, after the accident Gopalakrishnan was taken to CMC hospital, Coimbatore and thereafter, body of deceased was brought to Claimants house and then to burial ground, necessarily Claimants would have spent much amount for transport also. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Thus the total compensation of Rs.12,88,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,24,000/- as under :- Loss of dependency (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 13) Rs.14,04,000.00 Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000.00 Total Rs. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Thus the total compensation of Rs.12,88,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,24,000/- as under :- Loss of dependency (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 13) Rs.14,04,000.00 Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000.00 Total Rs. 15,24,000.00 The enhanced compensation of Rs.15,24,000/-is to be apportioned between the Appellant-Insurance Company (Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of Ford Ikon car) and the 5th Respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of Fiat Palio car) in the ratio of 50% : 50%. Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.7,62,000/- along with accrued interest and 5th Respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.7,62,000/-along with accrued interest. 40. Insofar as interest, Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the same is maintained. The enhanced compensation of Rs.15,24,000/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants as follows :- (i) 1st Claimant-mother is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-; (ii) 2nd Claimant-father is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- and (iii) 3rd Claimant-brother is entitled to Rs.1,24,000/-. 41. In the result, modifying the apportionment of negligence and liability upon the Appellant-Insurance Company (insurer of Ford Ikon car) and the 5th Respondent-Insurance Company (insurer of Fiat Palio car) in the ratio of 50% : 50% in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2004 dated 30.4.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court) at Sankari, Salem, the compensation of Rs.12,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,24,000/-and the appeals C.M.A.No.3261 of 2010 preferred by 5th Respondent -Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and the Cross Objection No.18 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.3261 of 2010 preferred by the Claimants are partly allowed. Consequently, the appeal C.M.A.No.3303 of 2010 preferred by the Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company is dismissed. It was stated before us that Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited 50% of its share apportioned by the Tribunal along with accrued interest. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining enhanced apportioned compensation along with accrued interest from the date of Claim Petition to the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It was also stated before us that 5th Respondent-Insurance Company has not deposited any amount. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining enhanced apportioned compensation along with accrued interest from the date of Claim Petition to the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It was also stated before us that 5th Respondent-Insurance Company has not deposited any amount. 5th Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit their entire 50% of enhanced compensation as apportioned along with accrued interest from the date of Claim Petition to the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share as apportioned along with proportionate accrued interest. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.