Judgment :- Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the common Judgment and Decree, dated 15.04.2014, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.65 & 66 of 2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Periyakulam, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant in both the C.M.As. is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.65 and 66 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Periyakulam, and the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014, is the claimant and respondents 2 to 4 are the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2011 and the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 are the claimants and the respondents 3 to 5 are the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2011 respectively. 3. The facts of the case: On 12.05.2011, the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 and son of the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014, were travelling in an auto bearing Registration No.TN-60-D-3026 from Periyakulam to Sothuparai. At that time, near N.S.N. Marriage Hall, Thenkarai, one Mahendra Van bearing Registration No.TN-57-AA-7220, belonging to the second respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 / third respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Auto. The first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 was grievously injured and the son of the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 died, in spite of intensive treatment. Therefore, the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal, common evidence was let in. The first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014, father of the deceased / first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 and Dr.Kannan were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. No evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant and other respondents and no document was filed and marked by them. 5. The first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014, father of the deceased / first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 and Dr.Kannan were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. No evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant and other respondents and no document was filed and marked by them. 5. The learned Judge considered all the materials on record and awarded a sum of Rs.5,37,800/- to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2011/first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 and a sum of Rs.9,64,000/- as compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2011/respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019/2014 Amount in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020/2014 1 Loss of income 2,16,000 750000 2 Loss of income during treatment period 1,200 - 3 Pain and suffering 10,000 - 4 Attendant charges 3,000 - 5 Medical expenses 150600 - 6 Permanent disability 152000 - 7 Nutritious food 5000 - 8 Loss of love and affection [each Rs.1 lakh] - 200000 9 Funeral expenses - 10000 10 Transport expenses - 4000 Total 537800 964000 6. Against the said judgment and decree, the present civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, (a) this Court has repeatedly held that the multiplier method cannot be adopted invariably in all the cases [2010 (1) TN MAC 463, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi and others]; (b) the disability assessed at 76% for first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 is highly unreasonable, against the guidelines of the Indian Medical Board and PW.3 Doctor did not follow the guidelines issued by the Indian Medical Board; (c) the Tribunal erred in granting compensation for the disability as well as the loss of earning against the ratio laid down in the Judgment reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 121 (DB) [Tamil State Transport Corporation Vs. Senthilkumar]; (d) the driver of Auto did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident; (e) as far as C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 is concerned, the Tribunal failed to note that no dependency existed at the time of accident and since the deceased was a minor, there may be future dependency. Senthilkumar]; (d) the driver of Auto did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident; (e) as far as C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014 is concerned, the Tribunal failed to note that no dependency existed at the time of accident and since the deceased was a minor, there may be future dependency. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 152 [Manoharan and another Vs. Sudha S. Rao and another], awarded a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- in case of death of a minor boy. In another Judgment, this Court granted compensation of Rs.3,74,500/- for the death of 14 years of old boy; and (f) the Tribunal erred in relying the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MCD Vs. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [2005 (9) SCC 586] and granting huge amount of Rs.9,64,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following Judgments: (i) Manoharan and another Vs. Sudha S.Rao and another [2012 (2) TN MAC 152, wherein in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been held as follows: "4. In R.K.Malik v. Kiran Pal, 2009 (1) TN MAC 593 (SC), the accident occurred on 18.11.1997, when the Bus, after overrunning the road and breaking the railing, got drowned in Yamuna river, at wazirabad Yamuna Bridge, Consequent to which, 29 children died. Claim Petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, by its common award dated 6.12.2004, directed the Respondents 2 & 3 therein, to pay compensation of Rs.1,55,000/ - jointly and severally, to the dependants of children between the age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs.1,65,000/ -, for the age group of children between 15 to 18 years. Three children namely Kailash Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years. In the case of Kailash Rathi, compensation of Rs.1,05,000/ - was awarded and in the cases of Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma, Compensation of Rs.1,30,000/ - and Rs.1,31,000/ - respectively, was awarded. An Additional sum of Rs.1,000/ - was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The figures mentioned above include Rs.5,000/ - each, towards Funeral and Last Rites. An Additional sum of Rs.1,000/ - was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The figures mentioned above include Rs.5,000/ - each, towards Funeral and Last Rites. In all the cases, the Claims Tribunal has computed the Loss of Dependency on a Notional Income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, and Rs.5,000/- was deducted towards Personal and Living Expenses. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 ' for the children below 15 years and multiplier of 16 ' for the children between 16 & 18 years respectively. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation, legal representatives preferred Appeals before the High Court, and the High Court, by its common judgment dated 17.5.2006, enhanced the compensation in all the cases by Rs.75,000/- & 1,000/- (if not already awarded by the Tribunal) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim petition till payment. As against the Judgment of the High Court, Special Leave Petitions were filed to the Supreme Court, seeking for enhancement. Before the Apex Court, a contention was raised on behalf of the Appellants/Claimants that both the Tribunal, as well as the High Court failed to consider the claim of the Appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It was contended that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below. Reference has been made to the Judgments in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274 ; Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 197 ; and M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 (8) SCC 151 . Accepting the above contentions, the Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation, by adding a further sum of Rs.75,000/- under head of Future Prospects in all the cases. 5. Reverting back to the case on hand, it could be noticed that the Claims Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and proceeded to deduct 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceases, for the purpose of computation of dependency compensation, which has been quantified at Rs.1,44,000/-. Though the Claims Tribunal in conformity with the decision of Supreme Court in D.S.Muralikrishnan Vs. Though the Claims Tribunal in conformity with the decision of Supreme Court in D.S.Muralikrishnan Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Division-I) Ltd., 2004 (2) TN MAC 150 (DB), has awarded compensation, this Court is of the view that the said method of assessment is not in accordance with the decision made in R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, 2009 (1) TN MAC 593 (SC). Therefore, taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, approved by the Supreme Court in R.K.Malik's case, the annual contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.15,000/-. Applying R.K.Malik case, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards Non-Pecuniary loss and a further sum of Rs.75,000/- is towards Future Prospects. Further, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is awarded towards Funeral Expenses and Rs.1,000/- is awarded towards Damage to Clothes. Hence, there shall be an enhancement of Rs.1,55,000/- on the quantum and the total compensation works out to Rs.3,06,000/- which shall carry interest 7.5% per annum.” (ii) Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another [2010 (2) TN MAC 581 (SC)], wherein in paragraphs 8, 9 and 13, it has been held as follows: "8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. – 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567). 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” (iii) MCD Vs. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [2005 (9) SCC 586], wherein in paragraph 4, it has been held as follows: "4. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy had handed over a chart to the Court incorporating calculations and quantifying the liability of the appellants herein in terms of the directions made by the High Court. The same is reproduced hereunder: (A) Compensation awarded to the deceased below the age group of 20 yrs. (No. of deceased 23) Rs.15,00,000/- Rs. 3,45,00,000 (B) Compensation awarded to the deceased above the age group of 20 yrs. (No. of deceased 36) Rs.18,00,000 Rs. 6,48,00,000 (C) Compensation awarded to the injured (No. of injured 103) Rs.1,00,000 Rs. 1,03,00,000 Total principal amount awarded (A+B+C) Rs.10,96,00,000 55% of the principal amount payable by Ansal Theatre and Clubotels (P) Ltd Rs. 6,02,80,000 50% of the principal amount Rs. (No. of deceased 36) Rs.18,00,000 Rs. 6,48,00,000 (C) Compensation awarded to the injured (No. of injured 103) Rs.1,00,000 Rs. 1,03,00,000 Total principal amount awarded (A+B+C) Rs.10,96,00,000 55% of the principal amount payable by Ansal Theatre and Clubotels (P) Ltd Rs. 6,02,80,000 50% of the principal amount Rs. 3,01,40,000 (The above calculations are without the interest of 9% from the date of filing of the writ i.e. 14.07.1997).” (iv) The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Trichy Vs. Annakkili and others [2013 (2) TN MAC 839], wherein in paragraph 9, it has been held as follows: "9. Considering the passage of time, since the decision in R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, 2009 (1) TN MAC 593 (SC), has been rendered and other aspects, stated supra, the award of Rs.3,40,000/-, to the family, cannot at any stretch of imagination, be said as bonanza or manna to the family members, who have lost a young boy, in the accident. In view of the discussion and decisions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of Compensation and hence, the award is sustained." 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants argued that the Tribunal has properly considered the facts and law and arrived at a just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, there is no necessity to set aside the judgment and decree passed in both the M.C.O.Ps. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 and the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014, relied on the following Judgments:- (i) Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.R.Senthil Raj and another [2013 (2) TN MAC 134 (DB)], wherein in paragraphs 6 and 9, it has been held as follows: "6. On 31.10.1998, when the first respondent / claimant travelled in the bike as a pillion-rider, he met with a tragic accident. He sustained multiple grievous injuries. His left leg below the knee was amputated. There was compound fracture also in his other leg. He had suffered injuries on his left hand (See Ex.P2 Wound Certificate). He had undergone surgical treatment. He was hospitalised for nearly 2 years. He suffered heavily. He has become a physically handicapped. Now, he cannot function as before. In the circumstances, his disability has been fixed at 75% by the Doctor (See Ex.P40 disability certificate). This disability determination has not been disputed. 9. He had undergone surgical treatment. He was hospitalised for nearly 2 years. He suffered heavily. He has become a physically handicapped. Now, he cannot function as before. In the circumstances, his disability has been fixed at 75% by the Doctor (See Ex.P40 disability certificate). This disability determination has not been disputed. 9. The Tribunal referring to the documents relating to I.T. Department and the Auditor's Report, assessed his yearly business and agricultural income at Rs.2,00,000/- and multiplied it by 15, thus, arrived at Rs.30,00,000/-. However, deducted 1/3rd from it, probably, towards his pleasure and other expenses. Ultimately, fixed Rs.20,00,000/- towards loss of his earning capacity. Such 1/3rd deduction ought not have been made in injury cases. Further, considering his physical disability, the Tribunal awarded him Rs.13,00,000/- as disability compensation.” (ii) Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others [ 2014 (1) SCC 244 ], wherein in paragraphs 34, 35 and 36, it has been held as follows: "34. Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos.1 & 2 by recording our reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and we have answered the point in favour of the appellants and also examined the claim of the appellants to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they have lost their affectionate 10 year old son. For this purpose, it would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at clause No.6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to accident. 35. The relevant portion of clause No.6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: .............. (a) Non-earning persons – Rs.15,000/- p.a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. 35. The relevant portion of clause No.6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: .............. (a) Non-earning persons – Rs.15,000/- p.a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.[ 2001 (8) SCC 197 ], while examining the tortuous liability of the tort-feasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000/- p.a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was awarded in that case. After noting the submission made on behalf of TISCO in the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs.2 lakhs.” C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014: 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for both permanent disability as well as loss of income, is well founded. Therefore, I set aside a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded for permanent disability. As far as the loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal has arrived at income of the first respondent at Rs.3,000/- per month, being the value of household work done by the first respondent. The said amount is on the lower side. Therefore, I set aside a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded for permanent disability. As far as the loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal has arrived at income of the first respondent at Rs.3,000/- per month, being the value of household work done by the first respondent. The said amount is on the lower side. Therefore, I fix the income of the first respondent at Rs.4,000/- p.m. Due to the accident, the first respondent suffered permanent disability at 40%, as held by the Tribunal. 12. It is now well settled that multiplier method need not be applied in all cases for compensation for the injuries suffered. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, percentage of disability whether total or partial and permanent and whether the claimant can do the work he was doing earlier or whether he can do any other work, the Court can adopt multiplier method or award lumpsum compensation for loss of earning capacity. 13. From the evidence of the Doctor, the claimant/first respondent cannot use her right hand for any purpose. Therefore, I hold that this is a fit case to apply multiplier method to arrive at quantum of compensation. 14. The first respondent was aged 32 years at the time of accident. The multiplier 15' is applied as per Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another]. Therefore, the loss of income is arrived at Rs.4,000/- x 40/100 x 12 x 15 = Rs.2,88,000/-. 15. The award of the Tribunal at Rs.1,50,600/- towards medical expenses; Rs.1,200/- towards loss of income during the treatment period; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards Nutritious food; and Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges, in my view, are reasonable and hence, they are confirmed. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated. Ultimately, the compensation is arrived at Rs.4,57,800/-, which sum is due and payable to the first respondent as compensation. C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014: 16. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards loss of income for the death of the son of the respondents 1 and 2. This said amount is arrived at, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MCD Vs. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [2005 (9) SCC 586]. C.M.A.(MD) No.1020 of 2014: 16. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards loss of income for the death of the son of the respondents 1 and 2. This said amount is arrived at, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MCD Vs. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [2005 (9) SCC 586]. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case, for death of a person, aged 20 years, but he has not disputed the award amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards loss of income for minor children. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,74,500/- for the death of 14 years old boy and in another case, only Rs.3,06,000/- was awarded for death of minor boy. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards loss of income, as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Considering the facts of this case, I hold that the ratio laid down in the two Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. In view of those two Judgments, a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- awarded towards loss of income is modified to Rs.5,00,000/-. The award of the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- each, to the respondents 1 and 2 for the loss of love and affection, is reasonable and accordingly, confirmed. A sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses; and Rs.4,000/- towards transport expenses are confirmed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. stands confirmed. 18. Thus, this Court modifies the award of the Tribunal and awards a sum of Rs.4,57,800/- as compensation in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014 and Rs.7,14,000/- as compensation in C.M.A.(MD)No.1020 of 2014, as enlisted below: Sl.No. Heads Amount in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019/2014 Amount in C.M.A.(MD) No.1020/2014 1 Loss of income [Rs.4,000/- p.m.] 2,88,000 5,00,000 2 Loss of income during treatment period 1,200 - 3 Pain and suffering 10,000 - 4 Attendant charges 3,000 - 5 Medical expenses 1,50,600 - 6 Permanent disability - - 7 Nutritious food 5,000 - 8 Loss of love and affection [each Rs.1 lakh] - 2,00,000 9 Funeral expenses - 10,000 10 Transport expenses - 4,000 Total 4,57,800 7,14,000 19. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellant are partly allowed. It is represented that the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount, pursuant to the order dated 05.11.2014 made in M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 in C.M.A(MD) Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2014. In view of the disposal of these appeals, the appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.65 & 66 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Periyakulam, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the first respondent in C.M.A.(MD) No.1019 of 2014, is permitted to withdraw the compensation now modified by this Court and the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.(MD)No.1020 of 2014 are permitted to withdraw the compensation now modified by this Court in equal proportion, less the amount, if any already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.