JUDGMENT : SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Amudhavalli W/o Arumugam, who died in the accident that took place on 20.02.2017. 3. The case in brief, is as follows: The deceased Amudhavalli, wife of the first respondent was working as a Teacher in Government Middle School at Sappadi, Shoolagiri Taluk. On 20.02.2017, at about 5.30 p.m., she was returning from her School as a pillion rider with her husband who was riding his Hero Splendor Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. TN-29-S-9542. When they were proceeding towards Muneeswaran Nagar on Thally Railway Gate, Muneesaran Nagar, Ring Road, Hosur, a Tata Tipper Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-51-D-6521, belonging to the 2nd respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, from the same direction and dashed against the two-wheeler which was driven by the 1st respondent herein. Due to the said impact, the pillion rider, the wife of the 1st respondent Amudhavalli sustained grievous injuries. She was admitted in the Kauvery Hospital, Hosur, where she underwent intensive medical treatment. However, she died in the hospital on the same day. Therefore the legal heirs of the deceased, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hosur. 4. Resisting the above claim petition, the Appellant/Insurance Company filed counter affidavit inter-alia contending that the husband of the deceased who was driving the motorcycle was going in front of the lorry in a rash and negligent manner without following road traffic rules and all of a sudden, he stopped the motorcycle in the middle of the road and thereby caused the accident. Therefore, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle and not by the driver of the lorry. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle and not by the driver of the lorry. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Further, the driver of the lorry and rider of the motorcycle have no valid driving licence at the time of accident which is violation of the policy terms and conditions. 5. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as PW-1 to PW-3. They marked 21 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21. The appellant/Insurance Company, had not adduced oral or documentary evidence. 6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Tipper Lorry and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 63,10,349/- as compensation to respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the husband and son of the deceased Amudhavalli. 7. Questioning the quantum and liability of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 30.09.2019 in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018, the appellant-Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the claimants are the husband and son of the deceased and they are not the dependents of the deceased. While so, the Tribunal ought to have deducted atleast half of the income towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain, 2018 (1) TN MAC 365. He would also submit that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the income tax due payable by the deceased while computing the compensation. He would also point out that the Tribunal had eroneously fixed the monthly income at Rs. 64,157/- whereas the last drawn salary of the deceased was only Rs. 48,670/- per month. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the total award of Rs. 63,10,349/- towards loss of dependency is highly excessive and it is liable to be reduced. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the claimants have infact claimed a total sum of Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal has rightly reduced amounts under all the heads and awarded a total sum of Rs. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the claimants have infact claimed a total sum of Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal has rightly reduced amounts under all the heads and awarded a total sum of Rs. 63,10,349/- which does not warrant any interference. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants and perused the materials available on record. Point for Consideration: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced? 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased/Amudhavalli was working as Teacher in Government Middle School at Sappadi, Shoolagiri Taluk. To prove her salary, Ex.P-15/salary certificate was marked, wherein the monthly salary was shown as Rs. 64,157/- while the basic salary was mentioned at Rs. 51,900/- (after the 7th Pay Commission). Therefore, relying on Ex.P-15, the Tribunal has rightly fixed a sum of Rs. 64,157/- as monthly income of the deceased and also added 10% towards her future prospects. As regards the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased by 1/3rd, it is pertinent to note that the 1st respondent being husband, is a legal heir, but he cannot be construed as a dependent on the deceased and as such, amount awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is liable to be reduced by fixing the personal and living expenses of the deceased at ½. As per the post-mortem certificate, the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident, and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier 11. In view of the same, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is reduced to Rs. 46,57,818/- [(Rs. 64,157/- + 6,416 (Rs. 64,157/ x 10%) x 12 x 11 x 1/2)]. Thus, Rs. 56,45,772/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency, is hereby reduced to Rs. 46,57,818/-. 12. As regards the compensation awarded under various other heads, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable which does not require any interference. Thus, Rs. 56,45,772/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency, is hereby reduced to Rs. 46,57,818/-. 12. As regards the compensation awarded under various other heads, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable which does not require any interference. However, as regards the loss of consortium to the husband, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has awarded excessive amount and the same is therefore reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the break-up details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and this Court are stated as follows: S. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 56,45,772/- 46,57,818/- Reduced 2. Loss of love and affection 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed 3. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 4. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 5. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 6. Loss of consortium 40,000/- 20,000/- Reduced 7. Future prospects 5,64,577/- -- Set aside Total Rs. 63,10,349/- Rs. 47,37,818/- Reduced by Rs. 15,72,531/- 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 63,10,349/- is hereby reduced to Rs. 47,37,818/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs, on the basis of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 2018, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.