JUDGMENT : (Prayer: CMA No.729 of 2020 is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.38 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Maduranthakam. CMP No.10066 of 2020 in Cross Objection SR No.57639 of 2020 is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit the petitioners to withdraw the entire deposited amount of Rs.6,63,704/- (50% of the award amount of Rs.13,27,408/-) with interest which has been deposited before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Maduranthakam to the credit of MCOP No.38 of 2016 pending disposal of the above CMA No.729 of 2020. CMP No.10070 of 2020 in Cross Objection SR No.57639 of 2020 is filed under Rule 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to grant an exemption to the petitioners from payment of Court Fee of Rs.16,000/- into the above Cross Objection in C.M.A.No.729 of 2020 for the present.) 1. The judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.38 of 2016 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Maduranthakam, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., who is the appellant herein, questioning the quantum of compensation. 3. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation, mainly contended that the Tribunal has not considered the facts set out in the FIR Ex.P-1, which is registered against the driver of the motorcycle. It is contended that the driver of the motorcycle committed an act of negligence and the said error is a ground to set aside the award. The evidence of RW-1 also reveals that the accident occurred due to the carelessness on the part of the deceased rider of the motorcycle. This apart, the claimants have not produced any valid document to prove the age of the deceased. Further, the income proof of the deceased also has not been filed by the claimants. For all these reasons, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be scrapped. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation, by stating that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting adequate compensation. For all these reasons, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be scrapped. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation, by stating that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting adequate compensation. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits in view of the fact that the Tribunal, with reference to the factum of accident, has clearly stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus driver. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate and the Tribunal has not considered the actual income of the deceased. As per the document produced by the claimants, the income of the deceased was more than a sum of Rs.11,000/-, as the Tribunal has taken the lower amount as a salary. In fact, the Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.8,732/- as monthly income of the deceased. It is further stated that the respondents-claimants have filed a petition to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount and they have filed a Cross Appeal also, seeking enhancement of compensation and the said Cross Appeal is listed, along with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under SR stage. 6. Today i.e., on 01.10.2020, the matter was heard finally. The respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents-claimants argued the matter at length. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants reiterated that the total compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is to be enhanced. 8. The accident occurred on 02.10.2014 at about 20 Hours on the Tindivanam to Chennai direction, near Mamandur Check Post at Meiyyur Koot Road. The Padalam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.588 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 337, which was subsequently altered into Section 304 (A) of IPC. 9. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-19-W-9769 from Tindivanam to Chennai Direction. The appellant-Transport Corporation dashed the two wheeler of the deceased and he sustained serious head injuries and died on 05.10.2014 at Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital. 10. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, before the Tribunal. 11. The appellant-Transport Corporation dashed the two wheeler of the deceased and he sustained serious head injuries and died on 05.10.2014 at Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital. 10. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased, before the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties. 12. As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the FIR Ex.P-1 and arrived a conclusion that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 13. The Tribunal has considered the observations in the FIR and made a finding that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus did not give a complaint immediately after the accident and he gave the complaint to the Police Station on the next day at 04.00 P.M. as per Rough Sketch, which was marked as Ex.P-4. 14. It is pertinent to note that the appellant-Transport Corporation bus and the motorcycle were moving on the same direction at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the sketch, which was marked as Ex.P-4 and arrived a conclusion that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus is responsible for the cause of the accident. As per Ex.P-5, which is the Motorcycle Vehicle Report, the front left portion of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus has been damaged. Therefore, the version of the appellant-Transport Corporation bus driver regarding the accident, was found not reliable. 15. At the outset, based on the draft plan, marked as Ex.P-4 as well as Ex.P-5 Motorcycle Vehicle Report, the Tribunal has arrived a conclusion that the appellant-Transport Corporation bus driver has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle of the deceased, which caused the accident and the pillion rider died after taking treatment in the Hospital. This Court do not find any perversity with reference to the findings arrived by the Tribunal in this regard. 16. Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claim petition reveals that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.11,926/-. The deceased was working as Member Production Assembly in M/s. Johnson Controls Automotive Limited. 17. The accident occurred during the year 2014. The salary slip of the deceased was marked as Ex.P-6. 16. Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claim petition reveals that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.11,926/-. The deceased was working as Member Production Assembly in M/s. Johnson Controls Automotive Limited. 17. The accident occurred during the year 2014. The salary slip of the deceased was marked as Ex.P-6. As per Ex.P-6, the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.8,732/- at the time of accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,732/-. 18. This apart, the parents of the deceased are the two dependents and the claim petition was filed by them before the Tribunal. Thus, 1/2 income is to be deducted. However, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the income of 1/3 is to be deducted. In the cases of Bachelor, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased. This apart, no future prospects have been added. The calculation made by the Tribunal by adopting multiplier 18 is also improper. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and therefore, multiplier 17 is to be adopted, as 40% future prospects are also to be added along with the other heads of compensation. 19. The Tribunal though awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,27,408/-, for which the conclusions are made, and by adopting the multiplier, are not properly done by the Tribunal. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], 40% future prospects is to be added and the deceased was being the Bachelor and therefore, 50% of the income is to be deducted. Accordingly, a revised calculation as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, is to be done. 20. The income from the deceased as per Ex.P-6 salary slip is Rs.8,732/- and adding 40% future prospects along with the salary (Rs.8,732/-x40%) is Rs.3,492/-.Thus the total monthly income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.12,224/- (Rs.8,732/-+Rs.3,492/-). Thus, the total annual income of the deceased is to be taken as (Rs.12,224/-x12) Rs.1,46,688/-. After deducting 50% of the income, the total annual income of the deceased is to be considered as Rs.73,344/-. By applying multiplier 17, the total dependency compensation is calculated as Rs.12,46,848/- (Rs.73,344/-x17). Thus, the total annual income of the deceased is to be taken as (Rs.12,224/-x12) Rs.1,46,688/-. After deducting 50% of the income, the total annual income of the deceased is to be considered as Rs.73,344/-. By applying multiplier 17, the total dependency compensation is calculated as Rs.12,46,848/- (Rs.73,344/-x17). Thus, the respondents-claimants are entitled for a total compensation as detailed below:- Loss of income Rs.12,46,848/- Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.13,16,848/- 21. However, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,27,408/-. The revised calculation as per the procedure is Rs.13,16,848/-. The difference in the amount is nearly about Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands confirmed as it is. The difference in the amount is less. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be considered as a reasonable and just compensation and the respondents-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,27,408/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant-Transport Corporation is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 22. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.13,27,408/- 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 their respective portion of the award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal in its award by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal and payments are to be made through RTGS. 23. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.38 of 2016 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Maduranthakam, stands confirmed and consequently, CMA No.729 of 2020 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.10066 and 10070 of 2020 in Cross Objection SR No.57639 of 2020 and CMP No.4475 of 2020 are closed.