JUDGMENT : C. Saravanan, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2017 on 28.02.2018 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional & Sessions Judge) at Coimbatore and to dismiss the above claim and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.) 1. The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. It is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2018 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, V Additional District Court as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2017. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.68,10,200/- to the claimants who are 1st to 3rd respondents in this appeal. They are the wife, the minor son and the mother the deceased Balasubramani who met with an accident on 21.08.2016 while he was travelling on a motorcycle when another motorcycle driven by the 4th respondent insured with the appellant is said to have collided with the motorcycle driven by the deceased Balasubramani. 3. It is stated that 4th respondent, the rider of the insured motor cycle, had driven it in a rash and negligent manner while coming from the opposite direction and deviated from the track and hit the motor cycle driven by the deceased. 4. The deceased fell down and was grievously injured and died on the way to the hospital. His body was later subject to post-mortem. The deceased was aged about 26 years and in the claim statement, it was stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month. The deceased was stated to be a pattern design maker and used to execute work for 3rd parties. 5. Though in the claim petition 1st to 3rd respondents have quantified the amount of compensation for an amount of rupees to Rs.2.20 Crores, the claim was restricted to Rs.2 Crores. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded the aforesaid sum of Rs.68,10,200/- to the 1st to 3rd respondents (claimants). 6. The appellant Insurance Company in this appeal has primarily questioned by income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of the loss of income. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded the aforesaid sum of Rs.68,10,200/- to the 1st to 3rd respondents (claimants). 6. The appellant Insurance Company in this appeal has primarily questioned by income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of the loss of income. The gross income of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was Rs.2,48,720/- vide Ex.P11 and the gross income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 as Rs.4,18,500/- vide Ex.P12. 7. The Tribunal taking note of the variance in the stated income of Rs.80,000/- in the claim petition and the gross income declared in the returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (Ex.P12) has considered as Rs.4,18,500/- as the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of compensation for awarding it to the claimants. 8. In this appeal, the appellant has also stated that the deceased Balasubramani was equally responsible for the accident and therefore there should have been 50% reduction of compensation as there was contributory negligence. It is further submitted that the FIR was filed on 22.08.2016 at about 00.30 hours by the brother of the deceased though the accident is said to have taken place on 21.08.2016 at about 20.15 hours and the delay in the FIR indicates that a false case was foisted against the 4th respondent and the appellant as the insurer. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded to the 1st to 3rd respondents (claimants) was exorbitant. 9. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have disbelieved the claim of the 1st to 3rd respondents (claimants) that the deceased was earning Rs.80,000/- per month since no educational qualification of the deceased was filed by them. It is further submitted that the address given in the Form-26 and the address of the claimants in the claim petition were in variance and therefore the Form-26 filed by the claimants were to be disbelieved and therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was liable to be interfered with. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that a copy of the accident register, wherein, the address of the deceased has been given as No.16, Karatupatti ward, Sri Ramapuram (TK), Dindugal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that a copy of the accident register, wherein, the address of the deceased has been given as No.16, Karatupatti ward, Sri Ramapuram (TK), Dindugal. He further submits that therefore there is no connections between the address given in the income tax returns filed in support of the income of the deceased vide Ex.P10, Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 and accident register, which was filed for the first time. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 12. Though, on behalf of the appellant it was vehemently argued that the deceased was guilty of negligence and therefore the claimants were dis-entitled to the compensation, we are unable to find any reasons to differ from the finding given by the Tribunal. The Ex.P4 Sketch of the accident site clearly shows that the accident has taken on the left side of the Road from East to West. It makes it clear that the deceased was maintaining the lane, whereas, the 4th respondent had came to the other side of the Road and collided with the deceased. 13. The Tribunal has not considered of Rs. 80,000/- as the income of the deceased while awarding the compensation. The Tribunal has determined the compensation based on the income in Ex.P12 Income Tax return dated 19.10.2015 of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2015- 16. It is prior to 21.08.2016, i.e. the date of accident. As per the aforesaid Income Tax Return in Form 26, the gross income of the deceased was Rs.4,18,500/- per annum. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased has been considered as Rs.34,875/- (4,14,500/12) and not Rs.80,000/- as was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the aforesaid income, the Tribunal has added 40% as the future prospects to arrive at the annual income of the deceased as Rs.5,85,900/- per annum as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . We therefore find that there is no infirmity in the calculation. 14. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . We therefore find that there is no infirmity in the calculation. 14. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the address of the deceased as in Exs.P10 to P12 (Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16) were in variance with the address given in the claim statement and the accident register are of no significance though at the first blush it did raise a shadow of doubt in our mind. 15. The accident register was not marked as an Exhibit by the appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal. In any event, it clearly declares that the name of the father of the deceased as Subbian and the body of the deceased was brought to the hospital by the brother of the deceased, named Mr.Sivakumar. 16. It is noticed that the name of the father of the deceased is Subbiya. Same name is reflected in Exs.P10, P11 & P12 Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The name of the husband of the 3rd respondent is also given as Subbiya in Ex.P15 Aadhar card. 17. Therefore, we are not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Exs.P10, P11 & P12 have no connection between the deceased and his income as the name of the father of the deceased in the accident register and the other documents show that the name of the father of the deceased is Subbiya. Ex.P3 Death Certificate also shows the name of the father of the deceased as Subbian. 18. Further, the address given in Ex.P13 Aadhar Card of the 1st respondent also has the same address as in Exs. P10, P11 & P12 Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Same address is given in the Bank Pass Books of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in Exs.P16, P17 & P18. Even though these accounts were opened on 04.10.2016, 11.01.2017 and 02.01.2017, nevertheless the address given there cannot be disbelieved in view of the address in the Ex.P13 Aadhar card of the 1st respondent and in Income Tax returns of the deceased. Even though these accounts were opened on 04.10.2016, 11.01.2017 and 02.01.2017, nevertheless the address given there cannot be disbelieved in view of the address in the Ex.P13 Aadhar card of the 1st respondent and in Income Tax returns of the deceased. Further Ex.P3 Legal Heir Certificate indicates the name of the mother as the 3rd respondent and Ex.P2 Death Certificate indicates the name of the father of the deceased as Subbian which is same as subbiya. 19. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has wrongly relied on the Ex.P12 Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2014-15 to determine the compensation, cannot be countenanced. We are of the firm view that the Tribunal has correctly relied on the Exhibit P12 Income Tax Return dated 19.10.2015 of the deceased. We find no reason to interfere with impugned order of the Tribunal when it relied on the annual income of the deceased from the Income Tax Return in Form 26. The Tribunal has correctly arrived on the loss of income as is evident form the following calculation:- (a) Income of the Deceased per annum (as per Exhibit P-12) Rs.4,18,500/- (b) Add: Future Prospect at 40% Rs.1,67,400/- Rs.5,85,900/- (c) Less: 1/3rd amount towards Personal Expenses of the deceased (5,85,900 x 2/3rd)Annual Contribution to the Family Rs.1,95,300/- Rs.3,90,600/- (d) Correct Multiplier considering the Age of the deceased 26 years :17. (3,90,600 x 17) Rs.66,40,200/- Therefore, the total Loss of Income of Rs.66,40,200/-. It has been correctly arrived by the Tribunal. 20. We find the compensation awarded on the other conventional heads are also in order and are in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 OnLine SC 1546. 21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 22. By an order dated 19.03.2019, this Court had directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the compensation to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2017. 21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 22. By an order dated 19.03.2019, this Court had directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the compensation to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2017. On such deposit, this Court had permitted the 1st and 3rd respondents (1st and 3rd claimants) to withdraw 50% of their respective shares along with accrued interest and considering the age of the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant, who is the minor, this Court had also directed to deposit the share of the 2nd respondent in any one of the nationalized bank under re-investment scheme till he attains majority. 23. If the appellant Insurance Company has deposited 50% of the compensation together with interest thereon, it is directed to deposit the balance 50% of the compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of such deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In case, if the 50% of the compensation has not been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, it is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation of Rs.68,10,200/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of such deposit as directed by the Tribunal, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 24. On such deposit, the 1st and 3rd respondents/1st and 3rd claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares and interest accrued thereon as directed by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 25. Since the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant is minor, the Tribunal is directed to deposit his share in any one of the Nationalized Bank under reinvestment scheme till he attains majority and permit the 1st respondent/1st claimant, who is the guardian of the minor, to withdraw the accrued interest from the minor’s deposit once in three months directly from the said Bank. On attaining majority, the 2nd respondent may be permitted to withdraw his share, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 26. On attaining majority, the 2nd respondent may be permitted to withdraw his share, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 26. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions is closed.