JUDGMENT : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Thiruchengodu. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the common award dated 19.10.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Thiruchengodu. 2. Both the appeals pertain to the same accident and the same award and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The parties hereinafter are referred to as per their respective ranks in the claim petition, for the sake of convenience. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company filed appeal in C.M.A.No.716 of 2021 is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Thiruchengodu. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Gunasekaran (husband of the 1st appellant, father of the appellants 2 & 3 and son of the appellants 4 & 5) in C.M.A.No.4756 of 2019 who died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 05.09.2014. 5. The appellant is the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Thiruchengodu. The brief facts relevant to the appeal are as follows:- 6. One Gunasekaran, S/o.Periyasamy was employed as Warden of the Adhi Dhravidar Welfare School and Hostel at Thiruchengodu and holding additional post of the Warden of Adhi Dhravidar Boys Hostel at Elachipalayam. He was drawing salary of Rs.32,000/- per month. On 05.09.2014, around 7.15 p.m., the said Gunasekaran was riding pillion on the two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Registration No.TN-28-AF-0230, belonging to his friend and when the vehicle was moving behind, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-76-A-5047 (Mahindra Tractor) from West to East, the Trailer attached to the Tractor was carrying a plough without Red reflector and the handle bar of the two wheeler collided on the plough from the Tractor Trailer and thereby the motorcyclist lost control and two wheeler rider and pillion rider both fell down on the road. The pillion rider Gunasekaran suffered head injuries and the passer by took him to the hospital at Thiruchengodu Government Hospital. The pillion rider Gunasekaran suffered head injuries and the passer by took him to the hospital at Thiruchengodu Government Hospital. The duty Doctors in the Government Hospital on examination of Gunasekaran informed that he had died on arrival and post-mortem was done in the Government Hospital, Thiruchengodu. Gunasekaran was survived by his wife and two minor children. Due to the loss of life of Gunasekaran, the wife and minors children have filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014. The owner of the Tractor was impleaded as 1st respondent and insurer of the Tractor was impleaded as 2nd respondent. Before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the owner of the Tractor remained ex-parte. The insurer of the Tractor vehemently opposed the claim petition and filed counter disputing the claim of the wife and minor children of the deceased Gunasekaran. 7. The wife of the deceased Gunasekaran was examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.-P13. The eye-witness in the accident Gowri Shankar was examined as P.W.2. The Special Tahsildar Adhi Dhravidar Welfare, Mr.Subramani was examined as P.W.3 to prove the avocation and income of the deceased Gunasekaran. The Special Sub- Inspector, Thiruchengodu, Mr.Magudabathi was examined as R.W.1. One Dinesh was examined on the respondent's side witness 2. One Dinesh, Law Officer of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company was examined himself as R.W.2. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruchengodu, had passed award whereby Rs.72,12,040/- was granted as compensation for the death of Gunasekaran. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company had preferred this appeal. 9. As per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.Arunkumar, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while calculating the compensation, had failed to deduct the Income Tax payable on the income of the deceased from the award. Also on appreciation of evidence, it is found that the two wheeler rider had collided behind the Tractor/Trailer and caused the accident. While so, the Tribunal fixing the entire liability on the Tractor Trailer which was moving in front of the two wheeler is unfair. At the scene of the occurrence, there were high power electrical power light is available. There was also a speed braker in the place of occurrence. While so, the two wheeler rider had been negligent and carelessness which led to the accident wherein, the pillion rider suffered injuries. At the scene of the occurrence, there were high power electrical power light is available. There was also a speed braker in the place of occurrence. While so, the two wheeler rider had been negligent and carelessness which led to the accident wherein, the pillion rider suffered injuries. Therefore, this Appellate Court has to fix liability on the two wheeler rider also as 50-50 and without fixing liability on the two wheeler rider but shifting the blame on the Tractor that was moving ahead of the two wheeler cannot be justified. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company had relied on the discussion by the learned Tribunal, regarding the liability. The learned counsel for the appellant had read the relevant paragraph contained in the award of the Tribunal which is in Tamil version, stating that the Tribunal had discussed about the negligence on the part of the two wheeler rider, but in the result portion of the discussion, the Tribunal fixes the entire liability solely on the insurer, which is unfair and unsustainable. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants had submitted his arguments. As per his arguments, he relied on the very same discussion portion of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal arrived at a best conclusion that the Tractor driver had violated the rule of the road traffic and thereby caused the accident. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant urges this Court to dismiss the appeal as having no merits. Points for consideration: In CMA.No.716 of 2021: (i) Whether the appeal preferred by the appellant / Insurance Company seeking to set aside the award is to be allowed? (ii) Whether the income tax was not considered by the learned Tribunal is the point for consideration? In CMA.No.4756 of 2019: Whether the appeal preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement is to be allowed? 12. Perused the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014, counter in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014, judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2014. On perusal of the same, it is found that the learned Tribunal had analysed the evidence and found that the two wheeler rider was also responsible for this accident. At the same time, in the penultimate portion of the order, it concluded that the Tractor and Trailer was at fault. On perusal of the same, it is found that the learned Tribunal had analysed the evidence and found that the two wheeler rider was also responsible for this accident. At the same time, in the penultimate portion of the order, it concluded that the Tractor and Trailer was at fault. Therefore, shifting the burden on the two wheeler and fixing the entire liability on the Insurance Company is found to be unfair. Even otherwise as per the normal human conduct and everyday experience, we can presume that the two wheeler driven on the road shall maintain a safe distance in an emergency that the vehicle moving in front may apply sudden brake. Here in this case there was speed breaker in the scene of occurrence therefore, the question of not having reflector lamp on the Trailer is found reasonable. We can presume that both driver and pillion rider had fallen down and the passers by have taken the injured to the hospital, where it was informed that the said Gunasekaran brought dead due to his injuries. 13. On perusal of the discussion by the learned Tribunal, it is found that the Income Tax for the award amount had not been deducted as per the evidence available through P.W.3, the Tahsildar of Adhi Dhravidar Welfare under whom the deceased Gunasekaran was working and drawing salary of Rs.32,000/- per month. He was in regular job and in Government Service. Therefore, applying the ratio in Sarla Varma and Pranay Sethy's case for those who died at the age of 31, the appropriate multiplier will be 16'. The number of dependents are 1 to 5. 14. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal, while calculating the compensation towards loss of income, ought to have deducted necessary Income Tax deductions, which the Tribunal failed to do so. If so deducted, the compensation under the head "loss of dependency" works out as calculated below. The number of dependents are 1 to 5. 14. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal, while calculating the compensation towards loss of income, ought to have deducted necessary Income Tax deductions, which the Tribunal failed to do so. If so deducted, the compensation under the head "loss of dependency" works out as calculated below. In that regard, it is worthwhile to mention the slab rates of income tax for the relevant assessment year, which is as follows: Income tax upto Rs.2,50,000/- = no tax Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.5,00,000/- = 10% tax Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000/- = 20% tax Rs.10,00,000/- and above = 30% tax The income of the deceased is Rs.31,120/- + 50% (future prospects) x 12 = Rs.5,60,160 less the amount towards Income tax payable = Rs.5,00,000 – Rs.2,50,000/- = Rs.2,50,000/-x10% = 25,000/- Rs.5,60,160 – Rs.5,00,000/- = Rs.60,160/- x 20% = 12,032/- Total = Rs.37,032/- Annual income for computation = Rs.5,60,160 – Rs.37,032/- = 5,23,128/- and after deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses, now Loss of dependency is Rs.62,77,536/- (3,92,346 x 16). 15. Except the above modification under the head "loss of dependency", the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and reasonable and the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, now the compensation is worked out as follows: Sl.No. Head under which the amount is awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Amount awarded by this Court in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 71,42,040 62,77,536 2 Loss of Consortium to the wife/1st respondent herein 40,000 40,000 3 Loss Estate 15,000 15,000 4 Funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 72,12,040 63,47,536 Rs.63,47,536/-70% of the amount comes to Rs.44,43,275/- 16. 30% of negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased Gunasekaran and 70% of negligence is fixed on the part of the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the 70% of the award amount comes to Rs.44,43,275/-. 17. Point for consideration 1 is answered in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against the respondents/claimants. Appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company is partly allowed. 18. Point for consideration 2 is also answered in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against respondents/claimants. Deduction of Income Tax from the compensation amount by the Tribunal was not carried out. 19. 17. Point for consideration 1 is answered in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against the respondents/claimants. Appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company is partly allowed. 18. Point for consideration 2 is also answered in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against respondents/claimants. Deduction of Income Tax from the compensation amount by the Tribunal was not carried out. 19. In view of the above discussion to point for consideration 1 and point for consideration 2 in C.M.A.No.716 of 2021 from paragraphs 12 to 18 and in view of the same reasoning point for consideration 1 in C.M.A.No.4756 of 2019 is answered against the appellants/claimants and in favour of the respondent/Insurance Company. 20. In view of the above discussion from paragraphs 12 to 18, the appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement is rejected. In the result, C.M.A.No.4756 of 2019 is dismissed. 21. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.72,12,040/- to Rs.44,43,275/-. This amount has to be apportioned as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the modified award amount, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw excess amount, if any lying in the Court deposit. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 4 and 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amount, with interest and costs. The share of the minor respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposited in any one of the nationalized bank as fixed deposit, till they attain majority. The 1st respondent/claimant, being the mother of the minor respondents 2 and 3, are permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in every three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 and 3, till they attain majority. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants shall pay the necessary Court fee, if any for the enhanced award amount. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.