JUDGMENT : 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the learned Special District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, in M.C.O.P.No.487 of 2014, dated 19.06.2017. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully. 3. It is a case of fatal and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,83,000/- as compensation, against which, the Appellant/Transport Corporation company is before this Court. 4. Though several grounds are raised in the memorandum of grounds, the main grounds on which the appellant Corporation has filed this appeal are on negligence and quantum. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal failed to fix entire negligence on the deceased pedestrian who stood on the left side of the road suddenly crossed towards the right side of the road coming on the middle of the road on his own negligence invited the accident and that the deceased was solely respondent for the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents. 6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the tribunal, at paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the judgment, has elaborately discussed the ground of negligence and has categorically held that the driver of the appellant Corporation invited the accident and the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-. It is further contended that the compensation awarded towards conventional head ie. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are high and therefore, the same deserves interference. 8. Perusal of records shows that the deceased was doing wood business, land broker and also agriculture work and earned Rs.15,000/- per month. Since, there is no proof for income, the learned Judge has reasonably fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, which, in my considered opinion, is reasonable. However, no compensation was awarded towards future expenses. The Supreme Court, in its latest verdict, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, decided on 31.10.2017, has held that 25% towards future prospectus is reasonable for persons in the age group 40-50. However, no compensation was awarded towards future expenses. The Supreme Court, in its latest verdict, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, decided on 31.10.2017, has held that 25% towards future prospectus is reasonable for persons in the age group 40-50. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 45 years and therefore, by applying the above principle, future prospectus is fixed at 25%. 9. It is also seen that the tribunal has deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. It is also seen that the tribunal has taken the multiplier as 14, which is reasonable. Hence, the award passed by the tribunal under the head dependency needs interference and the same reads as under: * ((Income of the deceased + future prospects) - personal expenses) is ((Rs.8,000/- + Rs.2,000/- (25%)) - Rs.2,500/- (1/4)) amounts to Rs.7,500/-. * By applying the multiplier method, it would be (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 14) amounting to Rs.12,60,000/-. * Therefore, the loss towards dependency is enhanced and the same is fixed at Rs.12,60,000/-, instead of Rs.10,08,000/-. 10. Other than dependency, the tribunal has awarded compensation on three heads, viz., Rs.25,000/- for funeral and transportation expenses; Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.3,50,000/- for loss of love and affection, totalling a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-. These are all nothing but compensation on conventional heads. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others, decided on 31.10.2017 (cited supra), has categorically held that the loss towards conventional heads should be Rs.70,000/- and following the same, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is ordered towards conventional heads and all the heads, other than dependency, stands deleted. 11. In result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the modified award reads thus: S. No Head Awarded by the tribunal Awarded by this Court Difference 1 Loss of dependency Rs.10,08,000/- Rs.12,60,000/- Rs.2,52,000/- 2 Loss towards Conventional heads Rs.4,75,000/- Rs.70,000/- Rs.4,05,000/- Total Rs.14,83,000/- Rs.13,30,000/- Rs.1,53,000/- The appellant is directed to deposit the entire sum of Rs.13,30,000/- [Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only] towards compensation with interest @ 7.5%, less the sum already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with accrued interests and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn by them, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the shares of the minor children in a nationalized bank until they attains majority. The first respondent herein, who is the mother/guardian, is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three months. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. If the entire compensation awarded by the tribunal, has already been deposited, then the appellant/Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount. 12. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation submitted that due to non-deposit of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, a bus belonged to the Transport Corporation has been attached. In the event of production of copy of this judgment, the Tribunal shall release the bus, which has been attached in the execution proceedings, forthwith.