JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in M.C.O.P. No. 1161 of 2012 dated 19.3.2014 awarding a sum of Rs.8,86,000/-, the Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A. No. 1685 of 2016 questioning the negligence and quantum and the Claimants have filed Cross Objection No.73 of 2016 seeking enhancement of compensation. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as “the Transport Corporation” and “the Claimants” in this order. 2. Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that the share auto driver, aged about 32 years, while driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 18 D 5242 on 6.9.2012 at about 21.00 hours on the Tiruttani to Chennai road after completing the pilgrimage tour at Tiruttani Murugan temple, wrongly and negligently came to the centre of the road and invited the accident, which has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal. Therefore, on this score, the Tribunal ought to have held the auto driver for composite negligence, instead of holding the driver of the Transport Corporation alone as completely negligent for the entire accident. Secondly, the share auto involved in the accident was not issued with any permit after 19.6.2012. Placing reliance on Form AIR issued under Rule 378 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, he further submitted that for the said vehicle, the period of validity of the permit had come to an end on 19.6.2012, whereas the accident took place on 6.9.2012. The long gap between the date of expiry of the permit of the vehicle and the date of accident clearly shows that on the date of accident, the driver of the auto (since deceased) ought not to have used the vehicle on the road. But violating that, he has used the vehicle. This has also not been properly considered by the Tribunal. Had it been properly considered, some degree of negligence would have been reduced from the side of the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation and some degree of contributory negligence would have been saddled on the driver of the share auto. Thirdly, when five witnesses including the doctor were examined before the Tribunal, none of the party witnesses spoke about the manner of accident. Thirdly, when five witnesses including the doctor were examined before the Tribunal, none of the party witnesses spoke about the manner of accident. Moreover, no one came forward to explain whether the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. This being a crucial aspect, the Tribunal, proceeding against the driver of the vehicle, has wrongly held that there was a negligence on his part and consequently the payment of compensation also has been wrongly fixed on the Transport Corporation, for the reason that the driver of the bus had caused the accident. 3. In response to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the Claimants, in support of the prayer for enhancement made in the Cross Objection, submitted that neither of these arguments were placed before the Tribunal. When a duty is cast upon the Transport Corporation to elicit sufficient information from the party witnesses with regard to the manner of accident, not even one single question had been posed to them. When the Transport Corporation has miserably failed to make use of any one of the party witnesses to speak about the manner of accident, so as to attribute the negligence on the part of the driver of the share auto, it is not open to the Transport Corporation to agitate any fresh matter before this Court. Adding further, she submitted that in respect of the very same accident, when the Tribunal passed an award in M.C.O.P. No. 1155 of 2012 on 19.3.2014 in favour of one Mr.Sivakumar awarding a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- towards partial permanent disability and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity, among other heads, for the multiple injuries suffered by him, against the said award, the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Limited had preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 2869 of 2015 challenging the compensation awarded, both on the question of negligence and quantum. But this Court, by order dated 17.12.2015, refusing to entertain the appeal preferred by the Transport Corporation, confirming the finding given by the Tribunal with regard to the negligence clearly holding on the part of the driver of the offending bus belonging to the Transport Corporation, has also further held that there was no infirmity with regard to the said finding. Therefore when the question of negligence now argued before this Court by Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss on behalf of the Transport Corporation was already held against the Transport Corporation, the said finding cannot be once again revisited, since this Court had already rejected such an argument. 4. I find merits in her submissions. First of all, five witnesses were examined before the Tribunal including the doctor. When the first four witnesses came before the Tribunal and spoke about the manner of accident to decide who was negligent for causing the accident, the Transport Corporation has miserably failed to obtain any positive information in their favour from any one of the four witnesses, resultantly the Tribunal held the driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the Transport Corporation as negligent for causing the accident. When this Court had already affirmed the said finding of the Tribunal and rejected the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation in C.M.A. No. 2869 of 2015 by order dated 17.12.2015, the present appeal raising the very same issue with regard to negligence also has to face the same treatment. Moreover, in respect of Form AIR showing that the share auto was having the valid permit only till 19.6.2012, it may be mentioned herein that a perusal of the evidence made during cross examination of all the four witnesses before the Tribunal does not show any question having been put to them with regard to the validity of the permit. Had the Transport Corporation posed the very same question before the witnesses on the validity of the permit beyond 19.6.2012, perhaps they would have succeeded or the Claimants would have given a suitable answer. Having missed their bus in not putting any specific or relevant question, it is not open to the Transport Corporation to rake up the same issue before this Court, more particularly, when the C.M.A. No. 2869 of 2015 at their instance was already dismissed by this Court confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Now coming to the issue as to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Claimants, it has been argued that when the deceased was a professional auto driver with a valid driving licence, the Tribunal, in spite of production of a copy of the driving licence of the deceased, was not right in fixing Rs.6,000/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased. The reason is that, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the Claimants, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC), clearly shows that even in the absence of any documentary evidence produced to prove the regular income of the victim, namely, vegetable vendor, at least a reasonable amount of Rs.6,500/- should be taken as the notional monthly income. If that is the settled legal position, in the present case, the deceased was admittedly driving the share auto (TATA Ace Magic) and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident involving the Transport Corporation bus. Therefore the Claimants have placed the licence of the deceased to show that he was a professional driver. In view of that, this Court is inclined to re-fix his monthly income at Rs.6,500/- on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and others case cited supra. Since the deceased was aged about 32 years, as per the date of birth mentioned in the Transfer Certificate, Ex.P7 as 4.5.1980, the Tribunal, in my considered opinion, should have added 50% of the salary towards future prospects. When there are four dependents, namely, wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth instead of one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased. When the deceased died at the age of 32 years in the accident, the right multiplier for the age group of 31 to 35 years is 16', as per the ratio of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma's case reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC). Hence, applying the guiding principles for the determination of compensation towards the loss of dependency, this Court quantifies the same at Rs.14,04,000/- (Rs.9750x12x16x3/4=Rs.14,04,000/-). 6. Hence, applying the guiding principles for the determination of compensation towards the loss of dependency, this Court quantifies the same at Rs.14,04,000/- (Rs.9750x12x16x3/4=Rs.14,04,000/-). 6. Similarly, when the compensation to be fixed under the other heads, namely, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 54 holding that a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded towards the loss of consortium and another Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the dependents/children, this Court, keeping in mind that the wife and two minor children had not only lost their sole breadwinner in the accident, but also his love and affection enormously, is inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first Claimant-wife, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the Claimants 2 & 3/minor children and Rs.50,000/- to the fourth Claimant-mother towards loss of love and affection. Besides, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards the funeral expenses. 7. Finally, the Claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,79,000/- together with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Out of the above, the first Claimant/widow is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, the second and third Claimants/minors are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- each and the fourth Claimant-mother is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,79,000/-. Since the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- alone has been deposited, the Transport Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the entire award amount together with interest to the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 1161 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such a deposit being made, the first and fourth Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest by moving appropriate applications before the Tribunal, after complying with the formalities. So far as the shares of the second and third Claimants/minors are concerned, the same shall be invested in fixed deposit in any one of the nationalised banks till they attain majority and that the first Claimant, as the guardian of minors, is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically. So far as the shares of the second and third Claimants/minors are concerned, the same shall be invested in fixed deposit in any one of the nationalised banks till they attain majority and that the first Claimant, as the guardian of minors, is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically. With this modification in the award of the Tribunal, C.M.A.No.1685 of 2016 filed by the Transport Corporation is dismissed and the Cross Objection No.73 of 2016 filed by the Claimants is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.12801 & 18343 of 2016 are also dismissed. No costs.