JUDGMENT : Abdul Quddhose, J. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 10th day of July 2018 made in MCOP.No.320 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Poonamallee. 1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court, Poonamallee) in MCOP.No.320 of 2016. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal: 2. A person by name A.Bhakyaraj died on 26.01.2016 as a result of an accident caused by a Mahindra Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN20-CX-5243 owned by the fourth respondent and insured with the Appellant insurance company. The accident happened when the deceased A.Bhakyaraj was travelling as a occupant in the Mahindra Maxi Cab Van which was proceeding from North to South of Chennai -Trichy National Highways Road (NH-45) opposite to Chiruvachur Arch, Perambalur District and the said van dashed against the Left-side iron pillar and capsized. As a result of the accident, A.Bhakyaraj sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. 3. The dependents of the deceased who are the respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd Additional District Court, Poonamallee) in MCOP.No.320 of 2016 against the fourth respondent as well as the Appellant insurance company seeking a compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- for the death of A.Bhakyaraj as a result of the accident. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 10.07.2018 passed in MCOP.No.320 of 2016 directed the Appellant to pay the claimants a compensation of Rs.27,58,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e., from 31.04.2016 till the date of realisation. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.27,58,000/-, the Tribunal determined the amount payable to the first respondent at Rs.19,58,000/- and the second and third respondents at Rs.4,00,000/- each. 5. Aggrieved by the Award dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.320 of 2016, this Appeal has been filed by the insurance company. 6. Heard Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.K.Varadha kamaraj, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. The fourth respondent has remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court. Discussion: 7. 6. Heard Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.K.Varadha kamaraj, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. The fourth respondent has remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court. Discussion: 7. The Appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. According to them, the notional monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- is very high and the Tribunal ought not to have awarded loss of future prospects at the rate of 40% to the claimants. According to them, the Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was a bachelor and hence, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. It is also their case that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is excesive and not in accordance with settled principles of law. 8. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as well as the materials and evidence available on record. 9. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have filed 12 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and two witness were examined who are (a) mother of the deceased “Malliga (PW1) and (b) an eye-witness to the accident” Senthil Kumar (PW2). On the side of the Appellant insurance company, neither any witness was examined nor any document filed. 10. The Appellant insurance company has not challeged the adverse finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and therefore, the said finding has attained finality. 11. In this Appeal, the Appellant insurance company has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. 12. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a van driver and earning a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have filed driving license of the deceased which was marked as Ex.A5 to prove that the deceased was having a valid driving license. The accident happened in the year 2016. 12. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a van driver and earning a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have filed driving license of the deceased which was marked as Ex.A5 to prove that the deceased was having a valid driving license. The accident happened in the year 2016. Even though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- as a van driver at the time of the accident, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- as no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as his salary, at the time of the accident. Anybody can possess a valid driving license and it cannot be inferred that a person holding a valid driving license is a van driver. But in the case on hand, it is the categorical stand of the claimants that the deceased was a van driver and the oral evidence of PW1 also supports the pleadings. If the claimants had prodcued any documentary evidence apart from the driving license to show that the deceased was a van driver, the assessement of notional monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- would have been correct. But in the instant case, no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove that the deceased was a van driver and earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the accident. This being the case, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.15,000/- which in our considered view is on the higher side. After giving due consideration to the year of the accident which is 2016, we are of the considered view that the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident, must be fixed at Rs.13,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. 13. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident and his age is proved through his driving license (Ex.A5). 13. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident and his age is proved through his driving license (Ex.A5). Considering his age and nature of his avocation, the Tribunal has rightly added 40% towards loss of Future Prospects which is 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 . Since the notional monthly income of the deceased is revised to Rs.13,000/- from Rs.15,000/-, the loss of future prospects at the rate of 40% will have to be added only on the sum of Rs.13,000/- and not on Rs.15,000/- as done by the Tribunal. 14. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. But under the impugned award, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd which is incorrect and not in accordance with the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Judgment referred to supra. 15. The first respondent is the mother of the deceased and the second and third respondents are his sisters. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimants. The loss of consortium is payable only to the wife of the deceased. But in the instant case, the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his mother and two sisters. This being the case, the claimants are only entitled to loss of Love and Affection and not loss of consortium. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the compensation awarded to the claimants under the head loss of consortium is incorrect and erroneous and hence, we are setting aside the same. However, the claimants are entitled to loss of love and affection which the Tribunal failed to award. In the considered view of this Court, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each is a just compensation to the claimants towards loss of love and affection. 16. However, the claimants are entitled to loss of love and affection which the Tribunal failed to award. In the considered view of this Court, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each is a just compensation to the claimants towards loss of love and affection. 16. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate as well as funeral expenses which is in accordance with the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Judgment referred to supra. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified in the following manner: Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Modified Award Amount (Rs.) Loss of income 26,88,000/- (15,000 + 40% = 21,000 x 12 = 2,52,000 – 1/3 = 1,68,000 x 16) 17,47,200/- (13,000 + 40% = 18,200 x 12 =2,18,400 – 50% = 1,09,200 x 16) Loss of Consortium 40,000/- Set aside Loss of love and affection Nil 75,000/- Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Total 27,58,000/- 18,52,200/- 18. In view of the modification in the impugned award, the first respondent being the mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.13,12,200/-, the second and third respondents, being the sisters of the deceased each are entitled to Rs.2,70,000/-. Conclusion: 19. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed and rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% is confirmed. The Appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.18,52,200/- along with interest and costs after deducting the amount, if any already deposited, to the credit of MCOP.No.320 of 2016 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 respective share of award amount to the respondents as per the Judgment of this Court through RTGS within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.