JUDGMENT : (Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.) (Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases), Pudukkottai.) 1. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the appellants/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award, dated 09.05.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases), Pudukkottai. 2. In the said M.C.O.P, the appellants/claimants 1 & 2 are the wife and child of the deceased-George William. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- on various heads. The said award is now challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal only on the quantum. 3. The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 31.12.2013 at about 14.30 hours, the deceased-George William was riding his Hero Honda Pleasure moped bearing Registration No.TN-63-AX-4912 along with his wife/first appellant, his son/second appellant and his daughter. While he was proceeding from Pudukottai to Alangudi in Pudukottai Thirumayam NH 36 road near Enayampatti Village, his daughter asked for water. Hence, the deceased had stationed the moped on the mud road and in a sitting position, he had been giving water to his daughter and his wife and son/second petitioner were standing near to them. At that time, a Tata Sumo Victa Car bearing Registration No.TN-45-AK-8685, belonged to the second respondent was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side towards East and dashed against the moped of the deceased and capsized in the near by canal. As a result of the accident, the deceased and his daughter sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The first and second appellants sustained grievous injuries all over the body and they were taken treatment. Hence the appellants/claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed this claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.2,97,48,205/-. 4. As a result of the accident, the deceased and his daughter sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The first and second appellants sustained grievous injuries all over the body and they were taken treatment. Hence the appellants/claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed this claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.2,97,48,205/-. 4. Resisting the claim petition, the third respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit denying the manner of the accident alleged in the petition and further contended that the deceased is also responsible for the accident by contributing his part of negligence to the accident and the quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and without any basis. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P36 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and that the deceased and his daughter sustained injuries and due to the impact, they died. The Tribunal further held that the third respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.41,00,000/- under various heads. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in rendering its finding relating to the nature of job held by the deceased in Republic of Singapore and the income; the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the documentary evidence adduced by the claimants stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,41,363.75/- in Indian Currency at the time of the accident, which is at the rate of Rs.2875 Singapore Dollar and the Tribunal ought to have found that one Singapore Dollar, at the time of the accident, was equivalent to Rs.49.17/- in Indian Currency and the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.1,41,363.75/- and the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the same to compute the future loss of income of the deceased. 9. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding the compensation referred in paragraph No.9, which reads as follows:- “9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.” 10. Following the said Judgment, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 481 (SC), held as follows:- “33. We have already noticed the table prepared in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), for the selection of multiplier. The table has been prepared in Sarla Verma having regard to the three decisions of this Court, namely, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 (2) SCC 176 ; U.P State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996 (4) SCC 362 and Charlie for the claims made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. The Court said that multiplier shown in Column (4) of the table must be used having regard to the age of the deceased. Perhaps the biggest advantage by employing the table prepared in Sarla Verma is that the uniformity and consistency in selection of the multiplier can be achieved. The assessment of extent of dependency depends on examination of the unique situation of the individual case. Valuing the dependency or the multiplicand is to some extent an arithmetical exercise. The multiplicand is normally based on the net annual value of the dependency on the date of the deceased’s death. Once the net annual loss (multiplicand) is assessed, taking into account the age of the deceased, such amount is to be multiplied by a ‘multiplier’ to arrive at the loss of dependency. The multiplicand is normally based on the net annual value of the dependency on the date of the deceased’s death. Once the net annual loss (multiplicand) is assessed, taking into account the age of the deceased, such amount is to be multiplied by a ‘multiplier’ to arrive at the loss of dependency. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma17 that claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma. 34. If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table read with paragraph 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a crisscross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the table in Sarla Verma, for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section 163A. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section 163A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be upto 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma, should be followed. This is to ensure that claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), in which the Constitutional Bench had dealt with the just compensation which has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also followed the formula relating to multiplier as has been clearly set out in Sarla Verma's case (cited supra) and Reshma Kumari's case (cited supra) and approved the principle of “standardization” so that a specific and certain multiplicant is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of the age. Thus, holding the same, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.” 12. In view of the above Judgments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was a Diploma Holder in Electronics and Communication Engineering and he had also completed the course of B.Tech (IT) course in Anna University and filed Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 in support his contention and he was gainfully employed in Singapore as a Technical Support Officer Grade - III (Engineer) in the Land Transport Authority, Singapore and he was earning a sum of 2875 Singapore Dollars per month. The appointment order issued by the Singapore Government was also marked as Ex.P.9. The date of accident is 31.12.2013 and the appellants have marked Ex.P.13, which is the Pay Certificate dated 12.11.2013 and 12.12.2013. 13. From the above, it is evident that the deceased was earning 2875 Singapore Dollar per month equivalent to Rs.1,41,363/- (1 Singapore Dollar – Rs.49.17 Indian Rupees). The appellants had also produced other documents in support of the employment of the deceased in Singapore. 13. From the above, it is evident that the deceased was earning 2875 Singapore Dollar per month equivalent to Rs.1,41,363/- (1 Singapore Dollar – Rs.49.17 Indian Rupees). The appellants had also produced other documents in support of the employment of the deceased in Singapore. The Tribunal had held that the deceased was not a citizen of Singapore and he was not permanently employed. But the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the deceased was made permanent even within a few months of his joining the duty. 14. When the above referred Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had mentioned that the income on the date of death of the deceased has to be considered for the purpose of computing compensation, surprisingly, the Tribunal had fixed only Rs.20,000/- Indian Rupees as monthly income of the deceased. 15. As stated earlier, the deceased was only 32 years on the date of his death. As pointed out in Sarla Verma's case (cited supra), the age of the deceased, the income of the deceased and the number of dependants have to be considered while arriving at the loss of dependency by the Tribunal. When the income of the deceased in a given case is supported by the documents, it is surprising as to how the Tribunal had arrived at a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. We are not able to accept the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- per month without any basis. 16. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income at Rs.1,41,363/- (2875 X 49.17). 17. Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company vehemently opposed the same. He pointed out that the deceased was employed in a Foreign Country and his employment is not permanent and therefore, the said amount cannot be considered for the purpose of calculating the compensation. The learned counsel also pointed out that income tax deducted for a person, who is earning in Singapore, is different from India and he has produced the Singapore Personal Income Tax Guide. The personal income tax rates are provided in the said guide. As the deceased was earning 2875 Singapore Dollar per month, his annual income would Rs.34,500/- Singapore Dollars. Individual resident in Singapore are taxed for their gross income at various % rate. 18. The personal income tax rates are provided in the said guide. As the deceased was earning 2875 Singapore Dollar per month, his annual income would Rs.34,500/- Singapore Dollars. Individual resident in Singapore are taxed for their gross income at various % rate. 18. As per the guide produced by the learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company, if the chargeable income is above 30,000/-, the gross tax payable is 200 Singapore Dollar and for the next 10,000/-, it is 3.50% of tax. Accordingly, for the first 30,000/-, 200 Singapore Dollar is taken and for the next 4,500/-, the tax payable at the rate of 3.50% is 157. Thus, the gross tax payable in Singapore Dollar is 357. However, this was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the appellants, whereas, taking the annual income of the deceased at 34,500/-, the income tax payable at 3.50% would be 1207.50 and the annual income after deducting income-tax would be 33,292.50 Singapore Dollar (34,500 – 1207.50). Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would be 33292.50 Singapore Dollar when converted into Indian currency it is equivalent to Rs. 16,36,992/- (33292.50 X 49.17). With the annual income of the deceased viz., Rs.16,36,992/-, 50% has to be added for the future prospects which is Rs.8,18,496/- and the same would arrive at Rs. 24,55,488/- (Rs.16,36,992 + Rs.8,18,496), from which, one-third has to be deducted towards personal expenses, that makes it Rs. 16,36,992/- (Rs.24,55,488 – Rs.8,18,496). Applying multiplier 10', the same would arrive at Rs.1,63,69,920/- (Rs.16,36,992 X 10). 19. As far as the loss of love and affection is concerned, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the claimants, which needs interference. As per the decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram & Others., reported in 2018 (1) TN MAC 452 (SC), the claimants 1 and 2 each are entitled to Rs.40,000/- which comes to Rs. 80,000/-(Rs.40,000 x 2=Rs.80,000/-). 20. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other conventional head, viz., a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses is very reasonable and is confirmed. 21. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. 22. The Tribunal had not awarded any sum towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses. 23. 21. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. 22. The Tribunal had not awarded any sum towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transport expenses. 23. A sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head 'Ambulance' is deleted. Accordingly, the total compensation is arrived at a sum of Rs. 1,64,99,923/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,65,00,000/-. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company was not convinced with the above calculation and strenuously tried to argue that the various Division Benches of this Court had adopted only 10' multiplier, when the deceased was employed in Foreign Country. 25. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company would rely on the following decisions:- (i) The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. S.Malarvizhi and others reported in 2013 (2) MWN (Civil) 537 (Mad), wherein it has been held as follows:- “14.The next aspect of the matter is regarding the monthly salary which the deceased would have earned. By relying upon Ex.P28, the letter dated 09.04.2002, it was contended that the salary of the deceased at the relevant point of time was S$ 3000 per month and therefore, the same has to be adopted. The Tribunal after considering all the aspects and taking note of the qualifications possessed by the deceased, fixed the monthly income of the deceased as S$ 2000 per month. The Tribunal held that the deceased would have spent 60% of his salary for his personal expenses and sent the remaining 40% to the dependents viz. the claimants. Fixing the age of the deceased as 32 years on the date of demise and considering the age of the dependents/parents, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10.” (ii) The Division Bench of this Court in Branch Manager Vs. Antony Sami reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 369 (Mad), wherein it has been held as follows:- “12.The appellant Insurance Company has not disputed the manner of the accident and also the liability. Antony Sami reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 369 (Mad), wherein it has been held as follows:- “12.The appellant Insurance Company has not disputed the manner of the accident and also the liability. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's van bearing Registration No. TN 09 K 5256 and since the said vehicle was insured with the first respondent/appellant Insurance Company, both the first and second respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the point to be deiced in this appeal is as to whether the quantum of the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 13. The case of the claimants is that at the time of accident, the deceased was 23 years old and he was a bachelor and he was working as AB in Vessel Crew department in Standford Marine, L.L.C., Dubai and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and due to the said accident, the deceased died and since the deceased had extended his full support to his family, the family of the deceased lost their income.” (iii) The Division Bench of this Court in Branch Manager Vs. Syed Dasminrani and others reported in 2018 (1) TN MAC 84 (Mad), wherein it has been held as follows:- “18. In the 1st case cited supra, the claimants, in that case, have produce Ex.P7-Salary Certificate showing that the deceased aged about 23 years was working in a shipping Company in a Foreign Country and the second case cited, the deceased aged about 29 years was working as Accounts Manager in UAE and was earning 4600 Dirhams per months, which is equivalent to INR 64,000/- per month. Ex.P.15- payment vouchers were also produced. The Division Bench, by following the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Valsamma Vs. Binu Jose, 2014 ACJ 997; and Vahisa and others Vs. Ex.P.15- payment vouchers were also produced. The Division Bench, by following the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Valsamma Vs. Binu Jose, 2014 ACJ 997; and Vahisa and others Vs. C.I. Lincy and others, 2017 ACJ 669, taking note of the observation in that cases, that income of a person in a Foreign Country, which is not a permanent employment cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head of loss of dependency and the income will have to be assessed in the context of Indian Standards which such person if he is employed will be getting fixed Notional Income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, since the deceased in one of the cases was a bachelor, applied multiplier based on the age of the parents.” 26. Though the above referred Judgments were employed by the learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company, wherein only 10' multiplier is adopted, considering the fact that the deceased was employed outside the Country. 27. In fact, in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. S.Malarvizhi and others reported in 2013 (2) MWN (Civil) 537 (Mad), the deceased was employed in a company in Singapore and he was also 32 years old at the time of his death. On the date of the Judgment, in Sarla Verma's case (cited supra), already the standardized multiplier adoptable has been discussed. As per the Sarla Verma's case, for the person who died at the age of 35 years, the multiplier adoptable is 16', whereas, the Division Bench of this Court had adopted only 10' multiplier and in this case, we have adopted only 10' multiplier though considering the age of the deceased 16' multiplier is applicable. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company cannot have any grievance. 28. The only aspect that the third respondent can object is the compensation for loss of dependency, however, he is unable to sustain the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as fixed by the Tribunal, as the same was fixed without any basis. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company is also rejected. 29. Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is modified 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 38,40,000/- 1,63,69,920/- enhanced 2. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company is also rejected. 29. Accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal is modified 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 38,40,000/- 1,63,69,920/- enhanced 2. Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 40,000/- reduced 3. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 40,000/- reduced 4. Loss of estate 25,000/- 15,000/- reduced 5. Ambulance 10,000/- ... deleted 6. Funeral expenses 25,000/- 25,000/- confirmed 7. Transport expenses .... 10,000/- awarded Total 41,00,000/- 1,64,99,920/- rounded off to Rs. 1,65,00,000/- Enhanced by Rs. 1,24,00,000/- 30. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as follows:- (i) The Award of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,65,00,000/- from Rs.41,00,000/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum is confirmed. (iii) The Award amount is apportioned as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal. (iv) The third respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount together with accrued interest and costs to the credit of claim petition, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) On such deposit being made, the first appellant entitled to withdraw her share in the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal together with proportionate accrued interest and costs. The share of the minor claimant/second appellant is permitted to be kept in any of the Nationalised Bank in interest bearing fixed deposits, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, till he attains majority and the guardian/first appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest amount from the above said fixed deposit, once in three months and utilize the same for the welfare of the minor child. (vi) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants pointed out that the claimants had obtained an order of exemption of payment of the entire Court fee. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pay the balance Court fees and also additional Court fee for the enhanced award amount and the Registry is directed to issue order copy to the parties concerned only after such payment and thereafter, draft the decree accordingly. No costs.