Judgment : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. The United India Insurance Company is the appellant in the above appeal challenging the award and decree dated 30.9.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Coimbatore both in respect of negligence and quantum of compensation. 2. Heard Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. In view of the order going to be passed, the notice to the respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with. 3. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 25.3.2008 at 6.45 pm. The deceased Sundarraj, aged about 26 years, was proceeding towards East of Sankara Eye Hospital Road, in his Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 24 W 2161 after finishing his work. When he was nearing to Villankurichi, Coimbatore Junction, the deceased stopped his motorcycle on the left extreme side of the road for turning towards right side of the road. The third respondent herein was driving a lorry bearing Registration No.TAR 7005 owned by the fourth respondent from North to South in a rash and negligent manner and without following the traffic rules hit against the motorcycle. In the said impact the deceased was thrown away from his motorcycle, sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. For the death of the deceased who is not married, his parents have filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- stating that the deceased was working as a Team Leader of the Engineering Design Department in KG HIRO TEC Engineering Services (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, and was earning a sum of Rs.31,500/- per month at the time of accident. 4. The said Original Petition was contested by the appellant herein contending that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the third respondent herein was not responsible for the accident. The deceased Sundarraj, drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently resulting the accident and that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, Mr.C.Sathyamoorthy, the first claimant, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Mr.Prabhu, an eye witness was examined as P.W.2. The deceased Sundarraj, drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently resulting the accident and that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, Mr.C.Sathyamoorthy, the first claimant, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Mr.Prabhu, an eye witness was examined as P.W.2. One Ms.S.Kavitha, Human Resource Manager of the KG HIRO TECH Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., the employer of the deceased at the time of accident was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P-1 to P-49 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no document was filed and no witness was examined. 6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the ribunal 1 Loss of income/loss of ependency to the parents of the deceased Rs.29,49,120/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents Rs. 50,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.30,04,120/- 7. The points that arose for consideration are:- (1) Whether the accident was happened due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent? (2) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is correct? (3) To what relief the claimants, the respondents 1 and 2, are entitled to? 8. Point No.1: The deceased Sundarraj was proceeding towards East of Sankara Eye Hospital Road, in his Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 24 W 2161. When he was nearing to Villankurichi, Coimbatore Junction, he stopped his motorcycle on the left extreme side of the road for turning towards right side of the road. The vehicle bearing Registration No.TAR 7005 belonging to the fourth respondent and driven by the third respondent suddenly came from the North to South in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding. The deceased was thrown away from the motorcycle and died instantly. The copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P-1. Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet. Rough sketch of the place of the accident was marked as Ex.P-5. 9. P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver who had not followed the traffic rules. The copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P-1. Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet. Rough sketch of the place of the accident was marked as Ex.P-5. 9. P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver who had not followed the traffic rules. When there is no other evidence on the side of the respondents to dispute the negligence of the deceased, from the evidence available it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent driver of the lorry belonging to the fourth respondent. The third respondent who is a driver of the lorry and who is the best person to speak about the accident has not chosen to appear before the Tribunal and depose about the accident. The evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye witness is also not challenged by the respondents. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal on the question of rash and negligence is confirmed and the Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 10. Point No.2: The Tribunal considering Exs.P-28, P-30, P-31, P-32 and P-33, came to conclusion that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.22,955.58 in the month of September, 2007 from TITSN Industries Private Limited Company at Hosur. On 16.11.2007 the deceased was appointed as Team Manager in the KG Hirotech Engineering Services Private Limited. The appointment order is marked as Ex.P-34. The register of wages was marked as Ex.P-35 which reveals the income of the deceased at Rs.31,500/- per month. The pay slips for the months of January, 2008 and February 2008 are marked as Ex.P-45 through P.W.3 who is Human Resource Manager of the company. Ex.P-45 reveals that the deceased was drawing a salary in a sum of Rs.30,720/- per month at the time of accident. The Income Tax Forms submitted to the Department by the deceased are marked as Exs.P-47 to P-49. On the perusal of these documents, it is clear that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.31,500/- per month on the date of accident. 11. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and he was aged 26 years. The Income Tax Forms submitted to the Department by the deceased are marked as Exs.P-47 to P-49. On the perusal of these documents, it is clear that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.31,500/- per month on the date of accident. 11. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and he was aged 26 years. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma – vs. - Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC), 50% of the future prospects of the salary of the deceased is to be added towards the salary. Adding 50% towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.46,080/- (Rs.30,720/- + Rs.15,360/- = Rs.46,080/-) per month. Since the deceased was an assessee to the income tax, 20% was deducted from the income, namely, Rs.9,216/-. Further 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, namely, Rs.12,288/-. Accordingly, the loss of dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs.24,576/- per month. The Tribunal adopted 12 multiplier and determined the total loss of dependency at Rs.29,49,120/-(Rs.24,576/- x 12 x 12 = Rs.29,49,120/-). In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the parents with interest at 7.5%. 12. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company contended that the deceased was employed in a private company which may not be a permanent job. He referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rashma Kumari and others - vs. - Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1253. It is contended that the future prospects of 50% should not be added to the income while calculating the loss of income. 13. We are not inclined to accept such a plea as the deceased was admittedly worked as a Team Leader in an IT Company. P.W.3, the Human Resource Manager of the employer, who has gone to the witness box, has deposed that the deceased was working as a Team Leader. The performance of the deceased during the employment period was extremely good and excellent. Now the company converted as a Multi National Company having collaboration with the foreign company. Considering the ability and qualification of the deceased, the future chances of promotion were also there for the deceased Sundarraj. The performance of the deceased during the employment period was extremely good and excellent. Now the company converted as a Multi National Company having collaboration with the foreign company. Considering the ability and qualification of the deceased, the future chances of promotion were also there for the deceased Sundarraj. Further looking to the Hierarchy of service in the company, there will be revision of pay, increments in salary and other benefits according to his promotion. Accordingly, the future prospects of the deceased is amplified by the evidence P.W.3 and by his present employment as Team Leader which shows the capacity for improving his earning capacity with promotional avenues. 14. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, we find that the income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. However, one error is crept in that instead of deducting ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased which is contrary to the decision in the case of Sarla Verma – vs. - Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC) which is confirmed in Reshma Kumari and others – vs. - Madam Mohan and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 vide para 37. In para 37, the Apex Court in 2013 ACT 1253 held as follows:- “37.As regards deduction towards personal and living expenses, in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), this court considered Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory 2004 ACJ 699 (SC) and finally in paras 14 and 15 of the Report held as under: “(14)... Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceeds six. (15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. (15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 15. Therefore, the loss of dependency will be Rs.18,434/- (Rs.36,864/- divided by 2 = Rs.18,434/-) per month. Applying 12 multiplier, the loss of dependency would be Rs.26,54,495/- (Rs.18,434/- x 12 x 12 = Rs.26,54,496/-) per month. Since the dependants are the father and mother of the young deceased, the loss of love and affection at Rs.50,000/- each is granted and the funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- in view of the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403. 16. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of income/loss of dependency to the parents, of the deceased Rs.29,49,120/- Rs.26,54,496/- 2 Loss of love and affection to the parents Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs.30,04,120/- Rs.27,79,496/- rounded off to Rs.27,80,000/- 17. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs.30,04,120/- Rs.27,79,496/- rounded off to Rs.27,80,000/- 17. There is no dispute in respect of the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered. 18. Point No.3:- In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.27,80,000/- from Rs.30,04,120/- (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed. (iii) The award amount is apportioned equally between the claimants. (iv) Eight weeks time is granted to deposit the entire award amount as ordered by this Court. (v) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as ordered and apportioned by this Court as above. (vi) Three will be no order as to costs in this appeal. (vii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.