JUDGMENT T. Krishnavalli, J. Assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Court), Madurai, in MCOP No.1925 of 2014, dated 26.10.2016, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 30.01.2013 at 1.20 pm, the deceased Arumugam was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-59-BX-4646 from Karungalakudi to Kovilpatti and when he reached Vairavanpatti, a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. TN-76-A-1348 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. In that process, the deceased Arumugam sustained grievous head injury and died on the spot. In this regard, a case in Crime No.7 of 2013 stands registered under Section 304(A) IPC against the driver of the tipper Lorry. 3. The claimants have stated that the deceased was 27 years old at the time of accident and he was working as a Construction Worker in a private Construction Company at Singapore and he was earning not less than Rs. 30,000/- per month. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and manner of the accident and their liability to pay the compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, in order to establish their case, the claimants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On the side of the appellant Insurance Company, 2 witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2 and 3 documents were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tipper lorry and awarded compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The father of the deceased was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The father of the deceased was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses. PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated that on 30.01.2013 at 1.30 pm, while they were travelling in a two wheeler behind the vehicle of the deceased and when they reached Vairanvanpatti, the driver of the offending vehicle/Tipper Lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased and due to which, the deceased died on the spot and they informed the occurrence to PW1 as well as to the Police and then, the body of the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants argued that after the occurrence, the father of the deceased went to the Police Station and the police officials obtained the signature of PW1 in several blank papers and in order to safeguard the driver of the offending vehicle, they prepared a complaint by stating that the deceased only dashed against the tipper lorry and sustained injuries and PW1 has not seen the occurrence and after he came to understand that the First Information Report was filed as against his son, then he gave the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi stating the real facts. 10. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is stated as follows:- xxxxxxxxx 11. Since no action was taken by the superior police officials, PW1 filed petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, directing to take appropriate action as against the police officials, who falsely registered the case against the deceased and now, the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur as C.C.No.37 of 2014 12. Since no action was taken by the superior police officials, PW1 filed petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, directing to take appropriate action as against the police officials, who falsely registered the case against the deceased and now, the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur as C.C.No.37 of 2014 12. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued that only the deceased drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the accident had taken place and PW1 has not signed in the blank papers and PW1 only gave the complaint stating that his son only drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry, but now in order to get compensation, he gave a false complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi and PW1 filed a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C directing the Inspector of Police, Kottampatti to register a case as against the driver of the tipper lorry and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 13. In this case, the copy of the First Information Report filed as against the deceased has been marked as Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, it reveals that the complaint was given by PW1. It is pertinent to note that PW1 has not seen the occurrence and he is only a hearsay witness. 14. Further perusal of the First Information Report (Ex.P1), wherein it is stated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. But the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent and only the Inspector of Police, Kottampatti was examined as RW1. 15. Rw1 deposed that only on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the deceased, a criminal case was registered against the deceased and the case was closed as 'Charge Abates. But the competent person to speak about the occurrence is the driver of the offending vehicle. No explanation was given on the side of the appellant Insurance Company/second respondent as to why they have not taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending vehicle. 16. But the competent person to speak about the occurrence is the driver of the offending vehicle. No explanation was given on the side of the appellant Insurance Company/second respondent as to why they have not taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending vehicle. 16. Further, on the side of the appellant Insurance Company/second respondent, it is argued that the deceased drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tipper lorry and therefore, the Court may contribute the negligence on the part of the deceased. For that, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted the following rulings:- 1. (Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidya Bhar Dutta and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 242 ); 2. (Shrimanti and Others vs. Krishna Deva Madiwal and Others, (2005) ACJ 350); and 3. (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mahima Singh,2018 SCCOnline(Del) 7269). 17. It is to be seen that in this case, already the respondents 1 and 2/claimants filed petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C directing the Inspector of Police, Kottampatti to register the case as against the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, RW1 during his evidence stated that in respect of the accident, FIR was registered as against the deceased. But during his cross examination, he has stated as follows:- xxxxxxxxx 18. In this case, RW1 has not produced the alleged complaint given by PW1. Hence, the non-production of the complaint given by PW1 creates doubt about the alleged complaint given by PW1. Further, PW1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and he is only a hearsay witness. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the cross examination of RW1. RW1 during his cross examination stated as follows:- xxxxxxxxxx 19. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued that due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, the accident had occurred and therefore, contributory negligence may be fixed as against the deceased. 20. In this case, PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle and they have not stated that both the vehicle had a head on collusion. 20. In this case, PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle and they have not stated that both the vehicle had a head on collusion. Hence, this court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to fix negligence on the part of the deceased and as such, the rulings submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company are not applicable to the instance case. 21. Further, it is seen from the records that RW1 has not denied the petition filed by PW1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was taken as C.C.No.37 of 2014 on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur and presented the same before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur. But RW1 simply stated that he did not know. 22. On careful perusal of Ex.P1, it reveals that PW1 gave complaint before the Superintendent of Police stating that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry, but the Kottampatti Police filed a false case against the deceased and hence, requested direction for reinvestigation. As per Ex.P2, PW1 took steps as against the Police official, who registered the case as if the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Further, PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, on the side of the Appellant Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined. Hence, from the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it reveals that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and not due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. 23. As regards quantum, it is not in dispute that the deceased died at the age of 27 years. It is seen from the records that Ex.P5 is the Passport of the deceased Arumugam, which shows that he has gone to Singapore in the year 2004, 2006 and 2007 and he came to India on 02.01.2013 and when he was in India, the accident had occurred on 13.01.2013. 24. It is seen from the records that Ex.P5 is the Passport of the deceased Arumugam, which shows that he has gone to Singapore in the year 2004, 2006 and 2007 and he came to India on 02.01.2013 and when he was in India, the accident had occurred on 13.01.2013. 24. Ex.P6 is the Work Permit issued by Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Republic of Singapore issued by Sunray Wood Craft Construction Private Limited certifying that the deceased was working as Construction Worker in their Company. However, there is no documentary evidence produced on the side of the claimants for the proof of getting salary by the deceased. 25. Pw1 the father of the deceased deposed before the tribunal that his son was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The tribunal considering the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, has fixed the salary of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month and by applying multiplier 17' and adding 50% towards future prospects, calculated the loss of income of the deceased at Rs. 45,90,000/-. Since the deceased is a bachelor, at the time of the accident, half of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. By doing so, the tribunal has calculated the loss of income of the deceased at Rs. 22,95,000/-. 26. Perusal of the award of the tribunal, no reliable document has been filed with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence, this Court is fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an additional of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. But in this case the tribunal while calculating the amount towards future prospects, has added 50%. This court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, has 40% towards future prospects and thereby calculated the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 16,800/-. By adding so and applying the multiplier of 17, this Court is calculated the loss of income of the deceased at Rs. 34,27,200/- (Rs.16,800/- x12 x 17). Since the deceased is a bachelor half of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. 16,800/-. By adding so and applying the multiplier of 17, this Court is calculated the loss of income of the deceased at Rs. 34,27,200/- (Rs.16,800/- x12 x 17). Since the deceased is a bachelor half of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Hence, the loss of income to the family comes to Rs. 17,13,600/-. 27. In so far as the conventional heads, this court is of the opinion, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 11 SCALE 247), the award of the tribunal under the conventional heads require modification. In this manner, the compensation that is payable to the claimants is worked out as under:- Head Award of the tribunal Award of this court Loss of Income 22,95,000/- 17,13,600/- Parental Consortium - 80,000/- Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 10,000/- Loss of Love and Affection 1,00,000/- 50,000/- Loss of Estate --- 10,000/- Total 24,00,000/- 18,63,600/- 28. The Appellant India Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs. 18,63,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. On such compliance, each claimants are entitled to withdraw Rs. 9,31,500/- without filing any petition before the tribunal. The excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. 29. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.