JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.” 2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed to set aside the common award dated 01.08.2016 made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1848, 1846 and 1847 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. 3. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the same accident and common award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The appellant-Transport Corporation is the respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1848, 1846 and 1847 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. The respondents in all the appeals filed the above said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- each as compensation for the death of Ramesh, Marimuthu and Chicken, S/o Rangaraj, respectively who died in the accident that took place on 16.08.2013. 5. According to the respondents in all the appeals, on 16.08.2013 at about 16.40 hours, while the deceased Marimuthu was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-54Y-4065 along with the deceased Ramesh and Chicken, S/o. Rangaraj, as pillion riders on the Malliyakarai-Thammampatty Main Road at a moderate speed near Boy Kadai Bus Stop, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30N-0739 drove the bus from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, colluded with the motorcycle driven by the deceased Marimuthu and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Marimuthu and Ramesh died on the spot and the said Chicken S/o Rangaraj, sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the said Chicken was taken to Government Hospital, Salem. Inspite of treatment, the said Chicken succumbed to injuries on 17.08.2013. Therefore, the respondents in all the appeals filed the above said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- each compensation for the death of the said Ramesh, Marimuthu and Chicken S/o Rangaraj, against the appellant-Transport Corporation. 6. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made by the respondents in all the appeals. According to the respondent, the accident has not occurred as alleged by the respondents in all the appeals. 10,00,000/- each compensation for the death of the said Ramesh, Marimuthu and Chicken S/o Rangaraj, against the appellant-Transport Corporation. 6. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed separate counter statements and denied all the averments made by the respondents in all the appeals. According to the respondent, the accident has not occurred as alleged by the respondents in all the appeals. At the time of accident, the driver of the bus drove the same slowly, cautiously by following all the road traffic rules and the deceased Ramesh only rode the motorcycle along with the deceased Marimuthu and deceased Chicken S/o Rangaraj, as pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and caused the accident. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the appellant-Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents in all the appeals. The respondents in all the appeals have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid legal heir-ship certificate. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents in all the appeals are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions. 7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 1156 of 2021 examined herself as PW-1, the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 1157 of 2021 examined herself as PW-2 and the 2nd respondent in C.M.A. No. 1153 of 2021 examined herself as PW-3 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant-Transport Corporation did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 5,95,000/- and Rs. 9,53,000/- and Rs. 9,03,000/- as compensation to the respondents in C.M.A. Nos. 1153, 1156 and 1157 of 2021 respectively. 9. To set aside the said common award dated 01.08.2016 made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1848, 1846 and 1847 of 2013, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeals. 10. 5,95,000/- and Rs. 9,53,000/- and Rs. 9,03,000/- as compensation to the respondents in C.M.A. Nos. 1153, 1156 and 1157 of 2021 respectively. 9. To set aside the said common award dated 01.08.2016 made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1848, 1846 and 1847 of 2013, the appellant-Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeals. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, who are not the eyewitnesses to the accident. The Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the driver of the bus merely relying on the F.I.R. It is well settled that negligence cannot be fixed relying on the F.I.R. or judgments of the Criminal Court. The Tribunal has to independently consider the evidence let in before it. The respondents in all the appeals failed to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased by producing valid documents. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income, the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- is excessive. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the appeals are highly excessive and prayed for setting aside the common award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on record. 12. It is the case of the respondents in all the appeals that while the deceased Marimuthu was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-54Y-4065 along with the deceased Ramesh and Chicken as pillion riders on the Malliyakarai-Thammampatty Main Road at a moderate speed near Boy Kadai Bus Stop, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-30N-0739 drove the bus from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, colluded with the motorcycle driven by the deceased Marimuthu and caused the accident. To prove the said contention, the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 1156 of 2021 examined herself as PW-1, the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 1157 of 2021 examined herself as PW-2 and the 2nd respondent in C.M.A. No. 1153 of 2021 examined herself as PW-3 and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation that the driver of the bus drove the same slowly, cautiously by following all the road traffic rules and the deceased Ramesh only rode the motorcycle along with the deceased Marimuthu and deceased Chicken S/o Rangaraj, as pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation and caused the accident. The appellant has not examined any witness to prove their case that the accident has occurred only due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The appellant or the driver of the bus has not filed any objection to the F.I.R. which was registered against the driver of the bus and has not filed any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and contents of Ex.P1/F.I.R. and failure on the part of the appellant for not filing any objection to the F.I.R. and not filing any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle, held that accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 13. As far as quantum of compensation in C.M.A. No. 1153 of 2021 is concerned, it is the claim of the respondents that at the time of accident, the deceased was a Mason, aged 21 years and was earning a sum of Rs.450/- per day. They did not file any document to prove the same. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal considering the year of accident and age of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is not excessive. As per Ex.P8/postmortem certificate, the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) rightly applied multiplier 18. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. 14. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) rightly applied multiplier 18. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. 14. As far as quantum of compensation in C.M.A. No. 1156 of 2021 is concerned, it is the claim of the respondents that at the time of accident, the deceased was a Mason, aged 29 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 450/- per day. They did not file any document to prove the same. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal considering the year of accident and age of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is not excessive. As per Ex.P3/death certificate, the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) rightly applied multiplier 16. 15. As far as quantum of compensation in C.M.A. No. 1157 of 2021 is concerned, it is the claim of the respondents that at the time of accident, the deceased was a Mason, aged 28 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 450/- per day. They did not file any document to prove the same. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal considering the year of accident and age of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is not excessive. As per Exs.P5 & P6/Postmortem and death certificates, the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) rightly applied multiplier 16. 16. In all the three appeals, the Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects and also not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) rightly applied multiplier 16. 16. In all the three appeals, the Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects and also not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. The respondents are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC). In view of the failure on the part of the Tribunal for not granting any enhancement towards future prospects and not awarding any amount towards loss of estate, the excessive amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is not interfered with. 17. In the Result: (i) C.M.A. No. 1153 of 2021 is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 5,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1848 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor 3rd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor 3rd respondent attains majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the Father of the minor 3rd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor 3rd respondent. (ii) C.M.A. No. 1156 of 2021 is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 9,53,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents, along with interest and costs is confirmed. (ii) C.M.A. No. 1156 of 2021 is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 9,53,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1846 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 4 & 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor respondents 2 and 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor respondents 2 and 3 attain majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the Mother of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 and 3. (iii) C.M.A. No. 1157 of 2021 is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 9,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1847 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor 2nd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor 2nd respondent attains majority. The share of the minor 2nd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor 2nd respondent attains majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the Mother of the minor 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor 2nd respondent. No costs.