JUDGMENT : Abdul Quddhose, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1971 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1971 of 2014. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal: 2. A person by name Balakrishnan died on 04.12.2014 as a result of an accident caused by a TVS Victor two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-39-Y-5761 owned by the third respondent and insured with the Appellant. Balakrishnan was walking along the side of the road in front of New Way Chudidhar Shop, Coimbatore to Trichy Road at Pongalur when the insured vehicle dashed against him resulting in his death. 3. The dependants of the deceased who are his wife and son preferred a claim against the Appellant Insurance Company as well as the third respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1971 of 2014, seeking a compensation of Rs.48,80,000/- which was restricted to Rs.48,00,000/-. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its award dated 30.11.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1971 of 2014, directed the Appellant to pay the claimants a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.28,00,000/-, the Tribunal determined the amount payable to the first claimant (wife) as Rs.18,00,000/- and the second claimant (son) as Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 6. Heard Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.F.Terry Challaraja, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Discussion: 7. According to the Appellant, without any basis, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. According to the Appellant, the accident having happened in the year 2014, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- when no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove the avocation of the deceased at the time of the accident. According to the Appellant, the accident having happened in the year 2014, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- when no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove the avocation of the deceased at the time of the accident. It is also their case that the evidence of PW3 cannot be relied upon as PW3 was only an Ex-Watchman of the sweet shop in which the deceased was alleged to have been working as a supervisor. The Appellant has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others V. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 ACJ 627 and submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed more than Rs.6,500/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident. It is also their case that the reimbursement of medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,50,000/- is excessive, since as per Ex.P7(medical bills), a sum of Rs.1,77,925/- is not allowable. The Appellant has also submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards attender charges, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection without any basis and according to him, it is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 8. We have perused and examined the impugned award as well as the materials and evidence available on record. 9. In this appeal, the Appellant Insurance Company has not challenged the adverse finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and therefore, the said finding has attained finality. 10. The claimants in their claim petition have pleaded that the deceased was working as a Supervisor at Annapoorani Sweet Shop at Tiruppur Branch and earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. However, no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- at the time of the accident. No contra evidence has also been produced by the Appellant Insurance Company to disprove the claim of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Supervisor at Annapoorani Sweet Shop at Tiruppur Branch. 11. No contra evidence has also been produced by the Appellant Insurance Company to disprove the claim of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Supervisor at Annapoorani Sweet Shop at Tiruppur Branch. 11. The claimants have also examined PW3- Ex-Watchman of the said sweet shop who has deposed that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- as a Supervisor at Annapoorani Sweet Shop at Tiruppur Branch. Though the oral testimony of PW3 is not a reliable piece of evidence, the Appellant Insurance Company has also not taken any steps through an independent investigation agency to find out the veracity of the claimants statement that the deceased was working as a Supervisor at Annapoorani Sweet Shop at Tiruppur Branch. 12. This being the case, we cannot treat the deceased on par with a manual labourer and necessarily, he has to be placed in a higher pedestal. However, we cannot accept in entirety the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- as no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate their claim. The accident happened in the year 2014 and considering the cost inflation index for that particular year, we are of the considered view that the monthly notional income of the deceased will have to be assessed at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. 13. The Tribunal under the impugned award has added 15% to the monthly notional income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. Before the Tribunal, even though the claimants had made a claim stating that the deceased was a Supervisor at Annapoorani Sweet Shop at Tiruppur Branch, no documentary evidence was produced by them in support of the said claim. Therefore, the deceased cannot be treated as a person in permanent employment and can be treated only as a self employed person. Hence, as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the loss of future prospects entitlement of the deceased is only 10% and not 15% as determined by the Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has also rightly applied the correct multiplier of 12, considering the fact that the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of his death. 14. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has also rightly applied the correct multiplier of 12, considering the fact that the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of his death. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium which in our considered view is excessive and not in accordance with the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . In our considered view, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium will be an adequate compensation. 16. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses which in our considered view is excessive and not in accordance with the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and as per the said Judgment, the compensation payable towards funeral expenses is only Rs.15,000/-. Hence, we reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has also awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges which in our considered view is too low and is enhanced to Rs.30,000. 18. No compensation was awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of estate which the claimants are entitled to as per settled principles of law. Accordingly, we assess the compensation towards loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering which in our considered view is excessive. We are of the considered view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be an adequate compensation under the said head. 20. We have also examined the medical bills (Ex.P7) produced before the Tribunal by the claimants. As seen from the medical bills, the claimants are entitled only to a sum of Rs.7,40,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- without calculating the total sum of the medical bills as per Ex.P7. We therefore, award only a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- instead of Rs.8,50,000/- towards reimbursement of medical bills. 21. As seen from the medical bills, the claimants are entitled only to a sum of Rs.7,40,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- without calculating the total sum of the medical bills as per Ex.P7. We therefore, award only a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- instead of Rs.8,50,000/- towards reimbursement of medical bills. 21. Insofar as other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are concerned, they do not call for any interference by this Court. 22. The impugned award is modified in the following manner: Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount modified by this Court Loss of income Rs.15,18,000/- (Rs.15,000+15% =17,250-1/3 x 12x 11) Rs.9,68,000/- (Rs.10,000+10% =11,000-1/3x12x11) Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/- Rs.25,000/- Pain and Suffering during hospitalization Rs.2,00,000/- - Mental agony - Rs.50,000/- Attender charges Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- Medical bills Rs.8,50,000/- Rs.7,40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Transportation Rs.15,000/- Rs.30,000/- Loss of Estate - Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.28,08,000/- Rs.19,33,000/- Rounded off Rs.28,00,000/- 23. In view of our finding, the amount awarded by the tribunal is reduced from Rs.28,00,000/- to Rs.19,33,000/-. Out of the said amount, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.11,33,000/-, the second claimant is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-. Conclusion: 24. In the result, the appeal is party allowed by modifying the award passed in MCOP.No.1971 of 2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur) by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.28,00,000 to Rs.19,33,000/-. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum is confirmed. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as per the order of this Court before the Tribunal along with interest and costs after deducting the amount, if any already deposited, to the credit of MCOP.No.1971 of 2014 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the share of award to the claimants as per the order of this Court through RTGS within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.