Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.18,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.4098 of 2009 (30.11.2010) on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai for the death of deceased C.S.Murali in a road traffic accident on 12.11.2009, the Claimants have filed C.M.A.No.2081 of 2011. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, Metropolitan Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A.No.2605 of 2011. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in C.M.A.No.2081 of 2011 filed by the Claimants. 2. Brief facts are that on 12.11.2009 at about 1.55 P.M., deceased Murali was riding his bicycle in K.H.Road near Easwaran koil street junction from Easwaran koil street to Konnur road from south to north. At that time, the bus bearing registration No.TN-01 M 5322 belonging to the Respondent-Transport Corporation driven by its driver from east to west in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bicycle. Due to the impact, Murali fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, Murali was taken to KMC Hospital and he died on the way to the hospital. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.406/AS3/2009 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of K4 Anna Nagar Police Station was registered against the Respondent-Transport Corporation bus driver. At the time of accident, deceased Murali was working as Technician Grade III in Wagon Shop, Southern Railway, Chennai and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, Claimants who are parents, son and daughter of the deceased have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Respondent-Transport Corporation has filed the counter contending that on 12.11.2009, the driver of the bus took his trip from Ayanavaram to Koyambedu. At that time, rider of the bicycle rode the same in an unbalance speed on the main road and the accident was due to the fault of the deceased and that the Respondent-Transport Corporation is not liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Respondent-Transport Corporation also denied age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Shankar (father of deceased) examined himself as P.W.1. Respondent-Transport Corporation also denied age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Shankar (father of deceased) examined himself as P.W.1. Eye-witness Karunakaran was examined as P.W.2. Narayanan, the then Staff Welfare Inspector, Southern Railway, Chennai was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P21 were marked. On the side of Respondent-Transport Corporation, its driver viz., Prakasam was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on the side of Respondent-Transport Corporation. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent-Transport Corporation bus driver and that the Respondent-Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Based on Ex.P10-salary slip, Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,995/-and adding 30% increase towards future prospects, Tribunal has fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.19,493/- and annual income at Rs.2,33,916/-. Deducting 20% towards income tax, Tribunal has calculated the annual income at Rs.1,87,133/-. Deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, Tribunal has calculated the loss of contribution at Rs.1,40,349/-. Adopting multiplier "13", Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.18,24,537/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.18,40,000/- as under:- Loss of dependency ... Rs.18,24,537.00 Loss of love and affection ... Rs. 10,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 5,463.00 Total ... Rs.18,40,000.00 6. Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel for Claimants submitted that Tribunal erred in considering the evidence of P.W.3 that deceased could have got three promotions in his service and would have earned more salary. It was submitted that Tribunal ought to have given more percentage towards addition in future prospects. Learned counsel for Claimants would submit that Tribunal erred in deducting 20% towards income tax and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for Respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier "13" and the same has to be reduced. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal ought to have deducted one-third towards personal expenses and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 8. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal ought to have deducted one-third towards personal expenses and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 8. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded in favour of Claimants and secondly, none of the findings are under challenge. Only quantum of compensation is under challenge. 9. In his evidence, P.W.1, father of deceased has stated that at the time of accident his son Murali was working as Technician Grade III in Wagon Shop, Box Paint Shed, Carriage and Wagon Works, Southern Railway, Perambur, Chennai and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. P.W.1 further stated that deceased has got 14 years of service and had he been alive, he would have got promotions and would have earned more salary and due to the death of deceased, they are unable to run the family. 10. To prove that deceased Murali was initially appointed as Assistant Cooks in Southern Railway, Claimants have produced Ex.P8-appointment order. By perusal of Exs.P9-identity cards, it is seen that deceased has got promotions and held various positions. As is seen from Ex.P14-order, deceased was given promotion as Technician Grade III in 2008 and was working in that capacity at the time of accident. 11. In his evidence, P.W.3 has stated that deceased Murali was joined in Southern Railway in 1984 and at the time of accident deceased was working as Technician Grade III and his monthly salary was Rs.14,995/-. P.W.3 further stated that deceased has got 14 years of service and had he been alive, he would have got two further promotions and would have earned higher salary. Ex.P10 is the salary slip for the month of July 2009. By perusal of Ex.P10-salary slip, it is seen that the Gross Pay of deceased was Rs.14,995/-. 12. Based on Ex.P10-salary slip, Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.14,995/-. Referring to Sarla Verma's case (2009) 6 SCC 121, Tribunal has given 30% addition towards future prospects. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that Tribunal erred in giving 30% increase and ought to have given atleast 50% addition towards future prospects. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ".... Referring to Sarla Verma's case (2009) 6 SCC 121, Tribunal has given 30% addition towards future prospects. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that Tribunal erred in giving 30% increase and ought to have given atleast 50% addition towards future prospects. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ".... the addition should be only 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years ..... ". Admittedly, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 46 years. Having regard to the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P10-salary slip, we are of the view that the monthly income of deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.14,995/- and 30% addition i.e. Rs.4,498/- given for future prospects by the Tribunal is reasonable warranting no interference. 13. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,493/- (Rs.14,995 plus Rs.4,498/-), Tribunal has calculated the annual income at Rs.2,33,916/- (Rs.19,493 x 12). Tribunal has deduced 20% towards income tax from Rs.2,33,916/-. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that Tribunal ought not to have deducted 20% towards income tax out of the total income of the deceased. In [ (2008) 2 SCC 763 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that tax payable has to be deducted from the compensation. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 20% deduction made by the Tribunal towards income tax is reasonable. 14. Deducting 20% towards income tax from Rs.2,33,916/-, Tribunal has calculated the loss of income at Rs.1,87,133/- per annum (Rs.2,33,916 x 20 ÷100). Tribunal has deducted one-fourth for personal expenses. Learned counsel for Respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that Tribunal ought to have deducted one-third for personal expenses as the 1st Claimant-father is not the dependent of the deceased. Admittedly, the wife of the deceased was pre-deceased and at the time of accident, deceased and his son and daughters were living in one roof. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that deduction towards personal and living expenses somewhere between one-third where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. In the present case, since there were four Claimants – father, mother, son and daughter, one-fourth deduction made for personal expenses by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is maintained. In the present case, since there were four Claimants – father, mother, son and daughter, one-fourth deduction made for personal expenses by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is maintained. Deducting one-fourth for personal expenses i.e. Rs.46,783/- (Rs.1,87,133 – Rs.46,783/-), Tribunal has calculated the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.1,40,349/- and the same is reasonable warranting no interference. 15. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 46 years. Tribunal has adopted multiplier "13" for calculating the loss of dependency, which in our considered view is in accordance with Second Schedule to M.V Act. Taking the annual contribution at Rs.1,40,349/- and adopting multiplier "13", Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.18,24,537/- (Rs.1,40,349/- x 13 = Rs.18,24,537/-), which in our considered view is reasonable and the same is confirmed. 16. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,463/- for funeral expenses and the same are maintained. The total compensation of Rs.18,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same is confirmed. 17. In so far as interest, Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition and the same is maintained. 18. In the result, the compensation of Rs.18,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.4098 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai is confirmed and the appeal – C.M.A.No.2081 of 2011 preferred by the Claimants is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal – C.M.A.No.2605 of 2011 preferred by the Respondent-Transport Corporation is also dismissed. It was stated before us that Respondent-Transport Corporation has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest and costs. It was also stated that so far Claimants have not withdrawn any amount. Claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with proportionate accrued interest as apportioned by the Tribunal immediately on receipt of copy of this judgment. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.