Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Heard Mr. V. Ramesh learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. Kulanthaivel learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The Transport Corporation is the appellant herein which challenges the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Sankari, on 30.08.2010 in M.C.O.P. No: 43 of 2007 in and by which the Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 18 lacs as against the claim of Rs. 20 lacs. 2. The claim petition is filed by the respondents 1 to 3 seeking a compensation of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs for the death of one Ezhilarasi. While the 1st respondent is the husband of the deceased Ezhilarasi, 2nd respondent is her daughter and the 3rd respondent is her son. According to the claimants, Ezhilarasi, who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Edapady, left her house on 13.10.2006 for attending election duty at Gengavalli. On 14.10.2006, for returning to her house at Edapady she boarded the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No: TN 30 N 0199 at Salem. Around 05.45 a.m., when the bus was nearing Vazhakuttai bus stop a Salem to Sankari main road, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No: KA 01 B 2932, which was parked on the extreme left side of the road. In the impact of the accident, one person was killed on the spot and grievous and simple injuries were caused to few persons apart from the death of Ms. Ezhilarasi. Ms. Ezhilarasi died on the way to Hospital. For her death, the claimants sought for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs as compensation. 3. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence brought before it, has taken a sum of Rs. 13,709/- as the monthly income of the deceased. By adding 30% with it, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 17,886/- as the monthly income of the deceased and after deducting one third towards her personal expenses, it had taken a sum of Rs. 11,924/-to be her monthly contribution to the family and arrived at a sum of Rs. 1,43,088/-as the annual income of the deceased. By adding 30% with it, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 17,886/- as the monthly income of the deceased and after deducting one third towards her personal expenses, it had taken a sum of Rs. 11,924/-to be her monthly contribution to the family and arrived at a sum of Rs. 1,43,088/-as the annual income of the deceased. As the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident, 14 was adopted as the multiplier and the loss of income was dervied at a sum of Rs. 20,03,232/- [Rs.1,43,088/- x 14 = Rs.20,03,232/-]. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the 1st respondent for loss of consortium; a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents towards loss of love and affection; a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transportation charges and in all a sum of Rs. 20,58,232/-was awarded as compensation. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials produced before us. 5. Though the appellant has raised an issue regarding negligence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits across the bar that in view of the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidentiary value, they are not seriously contesting the negligent aspect. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would seriously assail the impugned award on the question of quantum of compensation particularly, the income arrived at by the Tribunal. He pointed out that the Pay Commission Recommendations and the monetary benefits to be derived, which is a future event, had been taken into consideration while fixing the monthly income of the deceased which is illogical and against the rule of law. According to the learned counsel, this would definitely vitiate the award. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant would submit that though the Tribunal has reached a conclusion as to the entitlement of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,58,232/-, it had awarded only a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and therefore, the appellant, by misconceiving the position as to the income, has come up on appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. 20,58,232/-, it had awarded only a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and therefore, the appellant, by misconceiving the position as to the income, has come up on appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. He also contended that the Tribunal, based on a clinching oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at the pecuniary and non – pecuniary damages in a just and appropriate manner and no interference is called for. 7. As to the nature of the accident, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the deceased had travelled in the bus as a passenger belonging to the appellant transport Corporation bus which dashed against the lorry parked on the extreme left side of the road. On 14.10.2006 the deceased, while returning from election duty at Gengavalli, boarded the bus bearing registration No: TN 30 N 0199 at Salem. Since it was wee hours, the driver of the bus was driving at full speed. When the bus was nearing Vazhakuttai bus stop at Salem to Sankari main road, the driver, without noticing the lorry bearing registration No. KA 01 B 2932 parked on the extreme left side, dashed against the back side of the lorry. In the impact, the entire half portion of the left side of the bus was completely damaged killing one person on the spot and causing grievous and simple injuries to few persons apart from killing the deceased Ezhilarasi. Immediately, after the accident, on receipt of information, Sankari Police have registered a case in Crime No: 1056 of 2006 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 (A) of I.P.C. against the driver of the T.S.T.C. Bus, which is still pending with Judicial Magistrate No: 1, Sankari. The claimants sought a compensation of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs for the death of Ezhilarasi. The 1st claimant, husband of the deceased Ezhilarasi has examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Ex.P.1 – First Information Report; Ex.P.2 – rough sketch; Ex.P.3 – Charge sheet dt. The claimants sought a compensation of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs for the death of Ezhilarasi. The 1st claimant, husband of the deceased Ezhilarasi has examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Ex.P.1 – First Information Report; Ex.P.2 – rough sketch; Ex.P.3 – Charge sheet dt. 05.06.2007; Ex.P. 4 – Post Mortem report dated 14.076.2006; Ex.P.5 – death certificate dated 26.06.2006; Ex.P.6 – legal heir certificate dated 14.10.2006; Ex.P.7 – salary certificate dated 01.11.2006; Exs.P.8 & P.9 – School certificates in respect of R.2 and R.3 daughter and son of the deceased respectively; Exs.P.10 P.11 and P.12 – Income tax statement of the deceased for the assessment years 2004 2005, 2005 – 2006 and 2006 - 2007 respectively and Ex.P.13 – Certificate dated 04.08.2009 in respect of the increase in the salary of the deceased Ezhilarasi. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, the conductor of the bus involved in the accident alone was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was produced. While being examined in Chief, the conductor had stated that when their bus was proceeding in Salem Sankiri main road, near Vazhakuttai, two lorries coming in the opposite direction, were attempting to overtake each other. The driver of the bus, in order to avoid hitting those two lorries, drove the bus towards left side and in that process, he hit the lorry which was parked without any parking signals. According to the conductor, the accident had occurred only due to the negligent attitude of the driver of the lorry in parking the vehicle without any parking single as mandated in the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, he should be held responsible for the accident. However, in the Cross examination, the conductor would state that First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus only and that neither the driver nor the conductor of the bus, had lodged a complaint stating that the driver of the parked lorry was responsible for the accident. More over, the driver of the bus had not chosen to enter into the witness box to depose anything. More over, the driver of the bus had not chosen to enter into the witness box to depose anything. On this fact, the Tribunal, agreeing with the submission of the claimant that in order to avoid bringing out the actual facts only the driver of the bus has not chosen to enter into the witness box, held that the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation bus was responsible for the accident. Further more, the claimants have also examined P.W.2 – Balakrishnan, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. He had deposed that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, drove the bus negligently in a high speed, dashed against the parked lorry and caused the accident. Since the finding rendered by the Tribunal, is based on the evidence on record as discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant focussed his argument mainly on the question of fixation of income of the deceased. As per Ex.P.7 the basic salary of the deceased is shown as Rs. 10,951/-. However, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 that had his wife been alive, she would have received a sum of Rs. 13,759/- as salary as per the Pay Commission Recommendations as shown in Ex.P.13, had added 30% and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.17,886/-. After deducting one third towards her personal expenses, the annual income of the deceased was fixed at a sum of Rs. 1,43,088/- [ Rs.11,924/- x 12 = Rs. 1,43,088/- ]. As the age of the deceased was 45 years, as per the Post Mortem Report, 14 was adopted as multiplier and by multiplying the annual income with 14 the sum of Rs. 20,03,232/- was granted towards loss of future income. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ex.P.7 dated 01.11.2006, is the salary certificate of the deceased Ezhilarasi which shows that she has been drawing a sum of Rs.10,951/- as monthly salary. Ex.P.13 is dated 04.08.2009 which shows the effect of the Pay Commission Recommendations. The accident occurred in the year 2006. Therefore, the pay certificate which would be relevant to consider the income of the deceased would be the certificate of the year 2006 and not 2009. Ex.P.13 is dated 04.08.2009 which shows the effect of the Pay Commission Recommendations. The accident occurred in the year 2006. Therefore, the pay certificate which would be relevant to consider the income of the deceased would be the certificate of the year 2006 and not 2009. No doubt, the deceased, had she been alive would have received some more prospects in her career and thereby would have earned some more amount. That is the reason, 30% of the income is added while calculating the loss of future prospects. The Tribunal, in this case, has taken the income as shown in the certificate of the year 2009 and then added 30% with it to arrive at the loss of future prospects. This stand of the Tribunal is not supported by any legal position and therefore, it cannot be sustained. In our considered opinion, that is not the correct approach. Therefore, by taking into account Ex.P.7, we fix the monthly income of the deceased Ezhilarasi at a sum of Rs. 10,951/. 30% of that sum would be Rs. 3,286/- and by adding this the monthly income could be fixed as Rs. 14,237/-. One third of it would be Rs.4,746/-. If deducted, Rs. 9,491/- would be the exact monthly income of the deceased. So calculated the loss of future prospects is fixed at a sum of Rs.15,94,488/- [Rs.9,491/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 15,94,488/-]. The award of the Tribunal on the heading "Loss of future prospects" is fixed at a sum of Rs. 15,94,488/-. 9. For the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the 1st claimant. The 1st claimant has lost his wife in a young age. As per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC) in the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singth and others, the amount awarded under the head Loss of Consortium is increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Even under the heading loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd claimants – daughter and son of the deceased. They have lost their mother. Motherhood cannot be compensated by money. Considering the age of the 2nd and 3rd claimants, the amount awarded to them under the head "Loss of Love and Affection" is increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd claimants – daughter and son of the deceased. They have lost their mother. Motherhood cannot be compensated by money. Considering the age of the 2nd and 3rd claimants, the amount awarded to them under the head "Loss of Love and Affection" is increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. each. Similarly, towards funeral expenses and transportation, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we increase it to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly, under both the heads viz. Funeral expenses and transportation charges a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the claimants. Thus, in all, the sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is modified and a total sum of Rs.17,44,488/- is awarded to the claimants. The details are as follows : Loss of Future Prospects [Rs.9,491/- x 12 x 14] Rs.15,94,488/- Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of Love and Affection Rs.30,000/- Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.17,44,488/- With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, the claimants are hereby permitted to withdraw the balance amount of compensation with accrued interest thereon and the appellant transport Corporation shall be entitled to take back the remaining amount also. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.