Judgment S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 29.4.2010 passed in MCOP No.640 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first and second respondents herein are the father and mother of the deceased and the third and fourth respondents herein are the sister and brother of the deceased. The deceased was a Software Engineer. While riding his bike bearing Registration No.TN-09-AV-3721 at about 8.40 a.m., on 1.7.2008 towards his office and when he was nearing Teynampet Police Station at Mount Road, Chennai, the Metro Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-5627, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dased against the two wheeler of the deceased, thereby the deceased, who was riding his bike in a proper manner, was thrown out and caught under the tyres of the abovesaid Metro Bus and sustained fatal injury on his head and died on the spot. Since the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Metro Transport Corporation Bus, the respondents herein, filed a claim petition in MCOP No.640 of 2008 before the Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.95,75,000/- to be paid to them with interest at 12% per annum by the appellant Transport Corporation. That claim petition was resisted by the appellant-Transport Corporation by filing a counter affidavit. The Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, found that the bus driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and on account of the same, the accident had occurred. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.27,09,104/-towards compensation together with 7.5% interest to the respondents herein. 3. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, the appellant-Transport Corporation is before this Court alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and moreover they are also aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Tribunal as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation. It is their specific ground that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the two wheeler driver (deceased) who had involved in the accident. It is their specific ground that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the two wheeler driver (deceased) who had involved in the accident. Besides that, it is also the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation that the income of the deceased per month was taken as Rs.26,000/-, without any evidence and hence they question the compensation awarded to the respondents herein. 4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also gone through the award and the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram made in MCOP No.640 of 2008 dated 29.4.2010. 5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation would contend that the award is excessive, we find that at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and he was a Software Engineer, working in Tata Consultancy Services. On the evidence adduced, the Tribunal found that the deceased was working with one company called 'City Group Global Service Ltd' which was changed into Taata Consultancy Services in the year 2009 itself. Moreover, we find that the claimants had stated that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.40,000/- per month. But the same was not substantiated by them. Therefore, after the evidence of PW-3, a co-employee, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.26,000/-. In fact, on the basis of the chief-examination and the cross-examination only, the Tribunal had determined the income of the deceased at Rs.26,000/-per month. Therefore, we are not inclined to alter the same as requested by the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation. Besides that, we find that the multiplier ought not to have been taken as 13 as decided by the Tribunal. In fact, while determining the multiplier, the Tribunal misconceived and misdirected itself and taken the multiplier as 13, based on the age of the parents of the deceased. Whereas, it is a trite law that the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased only and not on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal needs to be changed, on the basis of the age of the deceased. Whereas, it is a trite law that the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased only and not on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal needs to be changed, on the basis of the age of the deceased. If that be so, the multiplier should be taken as 18 instead of 13, as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 24. Besides that, 50% future prospects have not been considered by the Tribunal while determining the compensation. In fact, the deceased was a Software Engineer and had bright future prospects in the company where he was working. Besides that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that 20% income tax deductions should also have been made. 6. Therefore, in view of the above, we modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the following manner:- Rs. Monthly income of the deceased 26,000/- Annual income of the deceased 3,12,000/- Add 50% for future prospects 1,56,000/- Total annual income 20% deductions for income tax 4,68,000/-93,600/- 50% deductions for personal expenses 3,74,400/-1,87,200/- Loss of earnings 1,87,200/- Multiplier = 18 1. Total loss of earnings = loss of earning x multiplier = Rs.1,87,200/- x 18 i.e., Rs.33,69,600/- 2. Loss of love and affection 50,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 25,000/- Rs.34,44,600/- 7. It is needless to add that in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objection, this Court, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, has granted the enhanced compensation, without a cross appeal, invoking provisions under Order 41, Rule 33 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. 8. Thus we have arrived at the final compensation to Rs.34,44,600/-with interest at 9% per annum payable by the appellant Corporation to the claimants. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant Corporation had deposited the entire award amount into the Tribunal below, as per the interim order of this Court passed on 25.7.2013. As per the interim order passed by this Court on 25.7.2013, the respondents herein are entitled to withdraw 25% of the deposit, but it is submitted that respondents/claimants have not withdrawn the 25% of the amount deposited by the Transport Corporation. As per the interim order passed by this Court on 25.7.2013, the respondents herein are entitled to withdraw 25% of the deposit, but it is submitted that respondents/claimants have not withdrawn the 25% of the amount deposited by the Transport Corporation. Thus, the entire award amount, as per the award of the Tribunal, is lying in a deposit with the Tribunal, which the claimants are entitled to withdraw at any time by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal below. With regard to the enhancement made today, the additional sum together with proportionate interest and costs, has to be deposited by the Transport Corporation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without fail, to the credit of MCOP No.640 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram. On such deposit being made, the claimants are directed to pay the additional court fee, if any, and withdraw the said amount also by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal. On such petition being made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall order for withdrawal of the entire amount with interest i.e., Rs. 34,44,600/- with interest at 9% per annum and costs, by the claimants as per the apportionment made in the award. 9. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.