JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.2862 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.) 1. The judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.2862 of 2012 by the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The claimants, who are the appellants herein, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants strenuously contended that the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires to be enhanced. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants states that the income of Rs.6,000/- is improper and not in consonance with the cost index of the particular year in which the accident occurred. 4. The deceased was working as a Beautician in a Beauty Parlour and was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. Thus, the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which is to be enhanced. Thus, the compensation granted under various other heads are also on the lower side and in total, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Transport Corporation disputed the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants, by stating that the appellants-claimants have not produced any documents to establish the income of the deceased. Though the employer, mainly the Beauty Parlour owner, PW-3, deposed before the Court that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month, the income of the owner PW-3 has not been established before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and no enhancement is required. The learned counsel for the respondent-Transport Corporation reiterated that reasonable amount of compensation has been granted by the Tribunal, except the error committed in granting 50% on future prospects and as per the principles, the appellants-claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Transport Corporation reiterated that reasonable amount of compensation has been granted by the Tribunal, except the error committed in granting 50% on future prospects and as per the principles, the appellants-claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to be dismissed. 6. The accident occurred on 22.05.2012 at 10.00 Hours at Kannaki Nagar Main Road, near Slum Clearance Board Building, Chennai. The J-3 Guindy Traffic Investigation Police Station registered a case in Crime No.1096 of 2012. 7. Ms.G.Gayathri, the deceased, was travelling in a Share Auto bearing Registration No.TN-04-V-3029. Due to the accident, she sustained crush injuries on both legs as well as the head injury. The deceased died on the spot. 8. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, before the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties. 10. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation as PW-1 and the evidence of PW-2 Mr.Shanmuganatham, who is the eye-witness, regarding the accident. The driver of the Auto driven his Auto at Thuraipakkam Kannagi Nagar Main Road from West to East direction near the Slum Clearance Board and therefore, the Tribunal has relied on the evidence of PW-2 Mr.L.Shanmuganatham and accordingly, arrived a conclusion that the driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation bus committed an act of negligence and consequently, the respondent-Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the appellants-claimants. 11. The facts narrated in the FIR also corroborating with the deposition of PW-1. The evidence of PW-2, who is the eye-witness, is also reliable. Thus, the deposition of RW-1, driver of the respondent-Transport Corporation bus, was rebutted and accordingly, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the respondent-Transport Corporation bus driver is responsible for the cause of the accident. 12. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. Undoubtedly, no proof of income has been produced by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal. However, the fact remains that the Beautician Certificate obtained by the deceased was marked as a document before the Tribunal. Thus, this Court arrived a conclusion that the deceased was working as Beautician in a Beauty Parlour. 13. In a Private Beauty Parlour, the deceased was working and the employer was examined as a witness. However, the fact remains that the Beautician Certificate obtained by the deceased was marked as a document before the Tribunal. Thus, this Court arrived a conclusion that the deceased was working as Beautician in a Beauty Parlour. 13. In a Private Beauty Parlour, the deceased was working and the employer was examined as a witness. The employer deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/- and further, she has submitted her PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department. One cannot expect that the employer would submit the income details of the business before the Tribunal for the purpose of tinkering the employee, however, the PAN Card has been produced, which reveals that the employer is an Income Tax Assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the witness of the employer and fixed the salary as claimed by the appellants-claimants. This apart, the deceased was very young and the accident occurred at the age of 22 years. Under these circumstances, fixing the notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month is undoubtedly inadequate with reference to nature of job, which was being performed by the deceased before the accident. Thus, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,500/-. However, the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects. 14. The Tribunal has committed has committed an error in granting 50% future prospects. As per the judgments of the Apex Court, 40% future prospects are to be granted with reference to the age group upto 40 years. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation as detailed hereunder:- Loss of Dependency (Rs.5,250/-x12x18) Rs. 11,34,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium for parents Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.12,14,000/- Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,14,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 15. The respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with accrued interest, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, being made, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and payments are to be made through RTGS. 16. 16. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.2862 of 2012 by the learned II Judge, Small Causes Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, stands modified and consequently, CMA No.3501 of 2019 is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs.