JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award in M.C.O.P.No.1663 of 2007 dated 11.01.2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The claimants in the above claim petition seeking compensation for the fatal accident of one Mr.Srinivasan on 02.07.2007 at about 17.45 hours opposite to Sub-Collector's Office, Hosur. The claimants namely, 1.Gouramma, 2.Valli, 3.Venkatesh and 4.Pappamma are the wife, children and mother of the deceased respectively. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the late Mr.Srinivasan was a pillion rider in TVS Super XL moped bearing registration No.KA-04-U-3181. The vehicle was driven by one Badrinath and the deceased. Being employed as an Office Assistant in the Civil Supplies Department, was carrying on the pillion two gunny bags of seized rice to the Government warehouse on instruction of the Superiors. Around 17.45 hours, the Transport Corporation Bus with registration No.TN-29-N-1247 coming behind the moped and lost control, by which, hit the moped thereby causing fatal injury to the deceased. Without responding to the treatment given by Sparsh Hospital, the injured died on 03.07.2007. According to the claimants, the accident occurred purely due to the rash, negligent and careless driving of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. 3. On the other hand, the Transport Corporation opposed the claim on the ground that the occurrence of the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the moped, who lost control because of the luggage carried and dashed against the Corporation Bus. It was also contended that since the accident occurred during the course of employment, the claimants were entitled only 6% interest. By considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 53 years and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,19,846/- with 6% interest, proportionately dividing the award amongst the claimants based on the status with costs as against the claim of Rs.16,00,000/-. Aggrieved the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Corporation. 4. The case of the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the appellant Corporation, the Tribunal failed to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th and that no documentary evidence was produced to the occupation and income of the deceased. 5. 4. The case of the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the appellant Corporation, the Tribunal failed to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th and that no documentary evidence was produced to the occupation and income of the deceased. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants argued that the Tribunal has passed the award after considering the oral and documentary evidence and that the reasoning of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence was perfectly right and deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses was accorded considering the fact that the second claimant was not married at that time. Further, the learned counsel for the claimants argued that even though the claimants have not preferred any Cross Appeal, they are entitled for 7.5% interest, as this was not the claim under the Workmen Compensation Act. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the other prospects of the claimants and hence prayed for increasing the quantum awarded by the Tribunal and also to award appropriate rate of interest. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the Appellant and the claimants. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW3, the rider of the Moped and evidence of RW1, the driver of the Corporation Bus and the documentary and other evidences had found that the driver of the Corporation Bus alone was responsible for the accident. The common factor in both their evidences is that the deceased was a pillion rider. The conductor of the bus was not let in any evidence. Upon perusal of the records, a deviation from the counter in the evidence of RW1 is apparent. The counter gives the picture, as if there is a head on collusion. Nothing was mentioned about the pillion rider falling in front of the rear wheel of the bus. So it is clearly an after thought. In any case, the evidence cannot go beyond the pleadings and hence the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the driver of the Corporation Bus. 8. Nothing was mentioned about the pillion rider falling in front of the rear wheel of the bus. So it is clearly an after thought. In any case, the evidence cannot go beyond the pleadings and hence the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the driver of the Corporation Bus. 8. Though the claimants have not produced any documents to prove the occupation and salary of the deceased, it can be seen from the records that the service book and the salary slip of the deceased were produced before the Tribunal for consideration which has correctly appreciated the documents and held that the claim towards income has been proved. 9. The next point for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in deducting towards 1/4th when there are four dependents in the family. I find that there is some force in the claim of the appellant. The second claimant at the time of accident was unmarried and all the expenses would have been met out by the deceased by his income. All the four claimants were dependents so the deceased was only the breadwinner of the family, therefore all the expenses invariably would have been met by the deceased. Therefore the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd of the income. Hence the annual earning of the deceased would have to be arrived at Rs.6,80,856/- instead of Rs.7,65,963/-. 10. Now coming to the prayer of the claimants regarding the enhancement of the interest of the award, the preamble of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the Act is a social welfare legislation. The purpose of various provisions regarding the award of compensation is to ensure that justice is rendered. It is not the case of a claim under Workmen Compensation Act. In fact the provisions of the said Act provides for payment of interest at 12% from the 31st day of the accident. There is no justification and reasoning in the award for granting 6% interest. 11. Considering the same and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that interest @ 7.5% has been awarded the grant of 6% is very low. If we consider the modification of the award by making deductions towards personal expenses from 1/4th to 1/3rd and increase in the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% the difference is only about Rs.79,192/-. If we consider the modification of the award by making deductions towards personal expenses from 1/4th to 1/3rd and increase in the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% the difference is only about Rs.79,192/-. Had he been alive, the deceased still have 5 years of Government service. The Tribunal did not consider the future prospects of the deceased. No life can be compensated in terms of money. But the family would get a little respite if reasonable compensation is awarded to them so as to lead a decent life in the society. A difference of Rs.79,192/- would not mean much to the appellant. Rather even a meager additional solatium would mean a lot to the family of the deceased. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court awards the difference of Rs.79,192/- towards future prospects of the deceased and feels it fit not to interfere with the total quantum of award of the Tribunal. 12. With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.