JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 12.04.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.9114 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.2 to deal with M.C.O.P. Cases) (Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) M/s.Oriental Insurance Company, having office at Chennai, had come forward with this appeal, questioning the correctness of the order (Award) dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court No.2 to deal with M.C.O.P. Cases) (Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.9114 of 2015, by specifically contending that the accident in question had occurred only due to the negligence attributable on the part of the deceased, but the Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards contributory negligence. The appeal is also filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly under the head-loss of income-. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein had filed M.C.O.P.No.9114 of 2005 before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Vinayaga Moorthy. The deceased is the husband of the first respondent/first claimant and the father of the respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 and son of the fourth respondent/fourth claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are ranked before the Tribunal. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, on 30.09.2014 at about 19.00 hours, the deceased was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 04 U 5315 from Amarampedu to Kavarapettai road, near Thanipoondi bus stop. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN.04.AJ.6656, was proceeding in front of the deceased. While so proceeding, the driver of the lorry had applied sudden brake, purportedly to have a conversation with some known driver of the stationary lorry parked on the left side of the road unmindful of the vehicle coming from behind the lorry. Due to application of such sudden brake by the driver of the lorry, the deceased hit the rear side of the lorry and sustained grievous head injuries. Due to such injuries, the deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 42 years and was engaged in contractual work. Due to application of such sudden brake by the driver of the lorry, the deceased hit the rear side of the lorry and sustained grievous head injuries. Due to such injuries, the deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 42 years and was engaged in contractual work. It is stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month and therefore, the claim petition was filed claiming a sum of Rs.1 Crore as compensation. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim petition by contending that the driver of the lorry did not apply brake abruptly or suddenly, as alleged by the claimants. According to the appellant/Insurance Company, it was the deceased, who, due to his carelessness and negligence, had hit the lorry from behind and died due to the injuries he sustained thereof. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in driving the same. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased, as claimed in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the first claimant examined herself as PW1 and one Rajan, an eye witness to the accident, was examined as PW2. The claimants have also marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, determined a total sum of Rs.93,57,500/- as compensation payable to the claimants by the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal did not consider the fact that it was due to sheer negligence on the part of the deceased that the accident had occurred. Admittedly, it was the deceased who had hit the lorry from behind, which would stand testimony to the fact that the accident was due to the negligence attributable on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations will squarely apply to this case. Admittedly, it was the deceased who had hit the lorry from behind, which would stand testimony to the fact that the accident was due to the negligence attributable on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations will squarely apply to this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, as per the said Regulation 23, the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle, shall keep at a sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid collision, if the vehicle in front, should suddenly slow down or stop. According to the learned counsel, the expression “sufficient distance“ has not been expressly defined in the Regulations, however, as per the said Rule, a driver of the motor vehicle should ensure reasonable distance to have control over his vehicle if the on-going vehicle suddenly and abruptly stops or slows down. In the absence of adherence to Regulation 23 by the deceased in this case, it cannot be said that the driver of the lorry is at fault or wholly contributed for the accident. Even PW2, who is said to have witnessed the accident, had only stated that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 10 feet and he did not say that the deceased was riding the vehicle with sufficient distance. The deceased was driving the two wheeler in close proximity, without maintaining sufficient distance to avert any collision with the on-going vehicle, which had resulted in the accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the appellant/Insurance Company is wholly liable and responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. In order to buttress this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nishan Singh and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2018 ACJ 1466 , wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held as follows:- “10. ......The expression-sufficient distance- has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver to respond. ......The expression-sufficient distance- has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver to respond. The distance of 10 - 15 feet between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of Maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants. 7. By pointing out the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that, in that case, the driver of the Maruti Car, which was proceeding behind a truck, had hit the lorry, due to which, the deceased, who was an occupant of the car therein, had died. The Supreme Court, in that case, while confirming the finding of the Tribunal and the High Court, had held that the Maruti Car was not driven at a safer distance and therefore, the driver of the Maruti Car must take the blame. In the present case also, the deceased did not drive the two wheeler by maintaining sufficient distance, which resulted in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the driver of the lorry had wholly contributed to the accident or atleast fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and failure to do so, vitiates the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month at the time of accident. To substantiate the same, Ex.P-8, details of the work completed by the deceased, along with the bills; Ex.P9 - Bank Statement and Ex.P-10 series being the copies of the Pan Card, Aadhar Card of the deceased, Form-26AS, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Form ITR-4, were produced. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the amount reflected in Form-26AS cannot be taken as the income or profit derived by the deceased in the business, rather, they relate to the payments received by the deceased for the work done by him as a contractor. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the amount reflected in Form-26AS cannot be taken as the income or profit derived by the deceased in the business, rather, they relate to the payments received by the deceased for the work done by him as a contractor. Thus, the amount reflected under Ex.P10 (Form-26AS) cannot form part of the income of the deceased, rather, they are gross receipts of the amount into the business of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting the business expenses from the gross receipts of the business, the net profit of the deceased has to be computed, which was not considered by the Tribunal. Further, as per the profit and loss account of the deceased for the year ending 31.03.2014, the profit derived by the deceased for the Financial Year 2013-2014 was Rs.4,04,014/-. In the Form ITR4 being the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, the deceased had declared his income as Rs.4,04,014/-. Thus, by placing reliance on Ex.P-10 series, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the income disclosed in the Income Tax Returns alone has to be taken into account, as they alone will serve as the best piece of evidence, which would truly disclose the annual income of the deceased. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us R.Subbiah, J, was a member) in United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Malarvizhi and others, reported in 2019 ACJ 1695 , wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the Income Tax Return is filed before the Tribunal, it would outweigh the other documents submitted on behalf of the deceased to show his income and the Income Tax Return submitted can be taken into account for determining the loss of income of the deceased. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company also submitted that the said Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, was also confirmed by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Malarvizhi and others Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1579. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company also submitted that the said Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, was also confirmed by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Malarvizhi and others Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1579. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the income disclosed and/or reflected in the Income Tax Returns of the deceased alone, had to be taken note of, for determining the loss of income, but the Tribunal, on an erroneous approach, had taken into account the income of the deceased at Rs.7,07,934/- as claimed by the claimants, for the Financial Year 2013-2014 to determine the compensation amount. The Tribunal had fixed a sum of Rs.7,62,043.20 as the annual earning of the deceased on the reasoning that the deceased had received Rs.7,07,934/- for the Financial Year 2013-2014 from M/s.Chennai Engineering Services and Rs.2,44,620/- from M/s.Savvy Engineering Solutions for the Assessment Year 2013-14, and arrived at a sum of Rs.9,52,554/- (7,07,934 + 2,44,620) as the total income of the deceased and by deducting 20% towards Income Tax, the Tribunal fixed the annual earning of the deceased at Rs.7,62,043.20 (Rs.9,52,554 - 1,90,510.8 (20% of 9,52,554)). Thereafter, by adding 25% of actual salary towards the future prospects, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.9,52,554/- as the annual loss of income and after deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.7,14,415.50 was fixed as annual loss of dependency and thereafter, by applying multiplier 13, a sum of Rs.92,87,401.50 had been arrived at by the Tribunal as total loss of income/dependency. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that while making calculation under the head “loss of income“, the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that even after the death of the deceased, the claimants are continuing the business left by the deceased through the first respondent/wife, which is evident from Ex.P-9 Bank Statement. As per Ex.P9, as on 04.03.2015, a new account was opened in the name of M/s. Madras Power Tech Services and the profit and loss derived by such firm as on 31.03.2015 viz., after the death of the deceased, has been hovered at Rs.6,01,660/-. As per Ex.P9, as on 04.03.2015, a new account was opened in the name of M/s. Madras Power Tech Services and the profit and loss derived by such firm as on 31.03.2015 viz., after the death of the deceased, has been hovered at Rs.6,01,660/-. By placing reliance on the above exhibits, it is submitted that even after the death of the deceased, the claimants are receiving income through the business established and left by the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that there was no loss of income occasioned to the family of the deceased due to the death of the deceased. If at all there is any loss of income to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants on account of the death of the deceased, it will be only loss of his valuable guidance and service, for which, the claimants can be compensated under the head “loss of guidance and service“ and not under the head -loss of income-. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company relied on the decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sujatha Rajalakshmi and others (C.M.A. (MD) No. 380 of 2008 dated 23.12.2010), reported in MANU/TN/3487/2010, wherein it was held that, when it is shown that the heirs of the deceased are earning income by continuing the business left by the deceased, the legal heirs have to be compensated only for the loss of valuable guidance and services of the deceased. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, at best, a sum of Rs.20,000/- could be fixed as the “loss of guidance and services” to the claimants and calculation can be made on that basis. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company prayed this Court to set aside the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head-loss of income-and instead, award a reasonable amount towards loss of guidance and services of the deceased. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there is no evidence let in by the appellant/Insurance Company to show that the deceased was not maintaining a reasonable distance ahead of the offending lorry at the time of accident. On the other hand, on behalf of the claimants, PW2, an eye witness was examined, who has deposed that he witnessed the accident at a distance of 10 feet of the accident spot. On the other hand, on behalf of the claimants, PW2, an eye witness was examined, who has deposed that he witnessed the accident at a distance of 10 feet of the accident spot. Of course, PW2 did not say as to what was the distance maintained between the motor cycle and the offending lorry at the time of accident. Even the appellant has not cross-examined PW2 on this aspect. Further, the First Information Report in this case under Ex.P1 and the Charge Sheet-Ex.P2, were registered only against the driver of the lorry. Above all, on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, no plea was raised before the Tribunal with respect to non-adherence of Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is estopped from raising such a plea before this appellate Court. Further, the pillion rider, who travelled along with the deceased, had also sustained injuries in the same accident and he filed M.C.O.P.No.2749 of 2016, which resulted in a settlement before the National Lok Adalat on 08.04.2017. Thus, the appellant/Insurance company have accepted their liability to pay compensation to the pillion rider, who had also sustained injuries in the same accident and therefore, the appellant cannot turn around and take a different stand, insofar as it relates to the compensation payable to the respondents. The Tribunal, considering the testimony of PW2, an eye witness to the accident, and on the basis of the above said Exs.P-1 and P-2, has rightly held that the driver of the lorry had applied sudden brake abruptly, which resulted in the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the appellant/Insurance Company, the plea that the deceased had contributed for the accident, will not arise. In such circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company in the case of Nishan Singh (cited supra), cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal is based on legally acceptable evidence in holding that the driver of the offending lorry alone had contributed for the accident and the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, will not arise in this case. 11. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal is based on legally acceptable evidence in holding that the driver of the offending lorry alone had contributed for the accident and the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, will not arise in this case. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants that the deceased was an Electrical Project Contractor and he was running the Sole Proprietorship business under the name and style of Power Tech Service. For the services rendered by the deceased, he received a sum of Rs.9,02,669/- from Chennai Engineering Services for the financial year 2011-2012. Similarly, for the financial year 2012-2013, the deceased received a sum of Rs.6,25,799/- from Chennai Engineering Service as also Rs.4,89,458/- from Savvy Engineering Solutions, totaling a sum of Rs.11,15,257/-. For the financial year 2013-2014, the total amount received by the deceased from the aforesaid two firms was Rs.9,52,254/-. The Tribunal had taken the sum of Rs.9,52,254/- received by the deceased for the financial year 2013-2014 for the purpose of determining the compensation and after giving 20% deduction towards Income Tax, arrived at the sum of Rs.7,62,043.20. By adding 25% of the income towards future prospects, a sum of Rs.9,52,554/- was arrived at by the Tribunal. As four of the family members were dependent on the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses and arrived at a sum of Rs.7,14,415/-. By applying multiplier 13, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.92,87,401.50 towards loss of earning of the deceased. This according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, is not only a fair and reasonable compensation, but based on the documentary proof filed by the respondents to show the earnings of the deceased. In fact, the gross receipt of income for the year ending 31.03.2012 (Profit and Loss Account) was Rs.15,34,842/-; for the year ending 31.03.2013, it was Rs.17,67,410/- and for the year ending 31.03.2014, it was Rs.19,35,064/-. The above income had not been not taken into account by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal had considered only the amount declared in the Form 26 AS. Therefore, the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is based on legally acceptable evidence and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. The above income had not been not taken into account by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal had considered only the amount declared in the Form 26 AS. Therefore, the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is based on legally acceptable evidence and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. As regards the plea of the appellant/Insurance company that even after the death of the deceased, the family of the deceased is continuing the business and making enormous income, it is submitted that PW1 in her deposition has stated that, after the death of the deceased, the family of the deceased could not earn any amount, inasmuch as the deceased alone was having knowledge about the nuances of the business. The first respondent/first claimant being the wife of the deceased, also denied having opened any new account on 04.03.2015 in the name of M/s. Madras Power Tech Services, rather, the first respondent/first claimant, transferred the Bank Account from Gummudipoondi Branch to Arumbakkam Branch. In effect, it was deposed that, after the death of the deceased, the family of the deceased sustained heavy loss and was unable to maintain themselves. Above all, there was no suggestion put to PW1 to the effect that even after the death of the deceased, PW1 was continuing the business and earning money. In the absence of any such suggestion having been put to PW1 during her examination before the Tribunal, the appellant is estopped from raising the plea that the claimants are only entitled for loss of guidance and services of the deceased. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants therefore submitted that the decision rendered by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sujatha Rajalakshmi (cited supra), has no application to the facts of the present case and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. As per the claim petition, on 30.09.2014, when the deceased was riding the two wheeler, the on-going lorry driven by the driver of the fifth respondent herein, had applied sudden brake without noticing the vehicles coming behind. 13. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. As per the claim petition, on 30.09.2014, when the deceased was riding the two wheeler, the on-going lorry driven by the driver of the fifth respondent herein, had applied sudden brake without noticing the vehicles coming behind. According to the claimants, by application of sudden and abrupt brake by the driver of the on-going lorry, the deceased was caught unawares and hit the lorry from behind, as a result of such collision, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, the deceased had contributed to the accident, inasmuch as he could have exercised caution and averted the accident had he been prudent. However, the Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards contributory negligence and therefore, the present appeal has been filed. 14. In order to buttress the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company relied on Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations. At the outset, even though the appellant/Insurance Company did not raise any plea with respect to applicability of Regulation 23 before the Tribunal, since it is a statutory provision, we are of the view that there is no embargo or bar for the Insurance Company to raise it before the Appellate Forum, i.e. before this Court in this appeal. 15. As per Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, a driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another on-going vehicle, must maintain sufficient distance to avert any collision, in the event of the on-going vehicle slowing down or applying sudden brake. This is a benevolent statutory provision and it will apply and will have a bearing on all the motorists to ensure their safety. The object with which this Regulation has been enacted is that the driver of a motor vehicle, in order to ensure his own safety and the safety of others, must maintain sufficient distance or to keep away from the on-going motor vehicle at a reasonable distance so as to avoid any collision in the event of an eventuality. This Regulation will assume significance, especially when the Country witnesses a burgeoning vehicle population. This Regulation will assume significance, especially when the Country witnesses a burgeoning vehicle population. Even though the expression -sufficient distance- is not expressly provided in the said Regulation No.23, by indicating the actual distance required to be maintained between two vehicles, it can be interpreted and inferred that it is the distance reasonably and adequately required to ensure absolute control to bring the vehicle to a halt, in the event of application of sudden brake or unwarranted brake by the on-going vehicle. It is needless to mention that a driver of a motor vehicle must not only maintain sufficient distance between the vehicles, but must also follow the Rules of prudence and study the driving pattern of the on-going vehicle, the vehicles coming behind and/or the motorist who may suddenly dart across, to ensure that nothing untoward happens while driving. If this is adhered to, certainly, accidents of motor vehicles could largely be averted. 16. If the above parameters are applied to this case, it is contended that the driver of the offending lorry had suddenly applied brake. There is no evidence brought on record as to whether the driver of the vehicle was driving at an alarming speed and then suddenly applied brake. Be that as it may. The deceased, as a motorist riding behind a heavy vehicle, ought to have exercised caution. The same yardstick will equally apply to the offending driver of the lorry, who, in the event of applying brake, has to ensure the safety of the other on-going riders, as also the vehicles preceding his vehicle or apply brake in such a way that it will not result in any collision. 17. In this case, admittedly, the deceased had hit the lorry soon after sudden brake was applied, as has been spoken to by PW2, which would only indicate that the deceased was not prudent enough or maintaining sufficient distance to avert a collision. It is also an indicative factor that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident. Had he been wearing a helmet, we are certain that the injuries caused to the deceased would have been mitigated and he could have survived the accident. Admittedly, it was the deceased who had hit the lorry from behind and sustained injuries and it is not a case where there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles. Had he been wearing a helmet, we are certain that the injuries caused to the deceased would have been mitigated and he could have survived the accident. Admittedly, it was the deceased who had hit the lorry from behind and sustained injuries and it is not a case where there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles. Therefore, there is negligence to a certain extent on the part of the deceased also, and the negligence cannot be attributed wholly on the driver of the offending lorry. In the light of the above discussion and in the light of the deposition of PW2, eye witness, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which it failed. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix 20% negligence on the part of the deceased and 80% on the driver of the offending lorry, insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 18. With respect to quantum of compensation, though it is contended that the family was running and looking after the business after the deceased, absolutely, there is no evidence to that effect before the Tribunal, and considering the same, a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be fixed as loss of guidance and service of the deceased. We find that there is absolutely no evidence to that effect before the Tribunal. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company in that regard. It is seen that Ex.P10 series were marked on behalf of the claimants to prove the avocation, as also the earnings of the deceased. However, it is also seen that the Tribunal also, by considering the documentary evidence under Ex.P10 series, determined the compensation amount payable to the claimants by taking into account the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.9,52,554/-. However, this amount of Rs.9,52,554/- is not the one reflected in Form 26AS. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the compensation amount, we are of the view that the details of income returned - computation submitted on 31.07.2015 by the first respondent for the period ending 31.03.2015 will be significant. However, this amount of Rs.9,52,554/- is not the one reflected in Form 26AS. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the compensation amount, we are of the view that the details of income returned - computation submitted on 31.07.2015 by the first respondent for the period ending 31.03.2015 will be significant. As per this statement, which was submitted six months after the death of the deceased who died on 30.09.2014, it was stated that the Net Profit as per Profit and Loss Account Statement derived by the deceased in respect of M/s.Madras Power Tech Services, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, was Rs.6,01,660/-. To this Net Profit of Rs.6,01,660/-, if deductions are made under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act (i.e. LIC Premium paid at Rs.28,286, Tuition fee paid at Rs.49,552/-) and also the deductions under Section 80-GG of the Income Tax Act, the total income comes to Rs.4,99,822/- being rounded off to Rs.4,99,820/-. It is further stated in the details for income returned - Computation, as enclosed in the typed set of papers, being one of the documents under Ex.P-10 series, that the tax on total income was arrived at therein at Rs.24,982/-. To this amount, if Rebate is given effect to under Section 87 of the Income Tax Act being Rs.2,000/-, the actual tax payable by the deceased was computed at Rs.22,982/- and if Education Cess at 3% on the tax is added, the Tax payable was arrived at Rs.23,671/- and therein, the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was shown as Rs.27,772/-. If this amount is taken as the annual income of the deceased and by adding 25% towards future prospects (Rs.1,50,415/-), the net annual income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs.7,52,075/-. By giving 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses (Rs.1,88,018/-) the total income of the deceased will be Rs.5,64,057/-. By applying multiplier (Rs.5,64,057 X 13), the sum of Rs.73,32,741/- will be the fair and reasonable amount payable to the claimants as compensation in respect of the total loss of dependency of the claimants. Out of this amount, if 20% is deducted towards contributory negligence i.e., Rs.14,80,548/-, the claimants will be entitled to a total sum of Rs.59,22,193/-. This amount is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company to the respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants. 19. Out of this amount, if 20% is deducted towards contributory negligence i.e., Rs.14,80,548/-, the claimants will be entitled to a total sum of Rs.59,22,193/-. This amount is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company to the respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants. 19. As the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are not questioned by the appellant/insurance company besides they being reasonable, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of those amount. 20. Further, we find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the love and affection to the minor children. Considering the fact that the minor children have lost their father at their tender age, the third respondent/minor claimant is entitled to get Rs.1 lakh towards the “loss of love and affection”. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance company is partly allowed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount which we have determined in this appeal, namely Rs.59,22,193/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs twenty two thousand one hundred and ninety three only) to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 9114 of 2015 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.2 to deal with M.C.O.P. Cases) (Court of Small Causes) Madras, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, together with accrued interest, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.