JUDGMENT : R. SUBBIAH, J. These matters are heard through Video Conferencing. 2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in and by its judgment and decree dated 27.08.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.2829 and 6769 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court I, Chennai, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: First respondent in C.M.A.No.1173 of 2021 is the mother of the deceased Arun Kumar. Respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.1176 of 2021 are the wife, daughter and minor daughter of the deceased Kathirvel. On 25.02.2014 at about 15.00 hours, while both the deceased were travelling as passengers in Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.TN-09-BS-3624 from Kalapattu to Chennai, the driver of the Maxi Cab driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side tree, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, respondents/claimants filed claim petitions seeking compensation in sums of Rs.75,00,000/- and Rs.45,00,000/- respectively. 4. Resisting the claim, the Insurance Company had filed a detailed counter inter alia stating that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by claimants. They further denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. 5. To prove their claim, before the Tribunal, the claimants examined 4 witnesses and marked 28 documents. On the side of Insurance Company none were examined and no exhibits were marked. 6. On appreciation of materials, the Tribunal, found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.TN-09-BS-3624 and held that the appellant Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows: Sl. No. Compensation awarded under the head M.C.O.P.No.2829 of 2014 M.C.O.P.No.6769 of 2014 Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 37,84,664/- 28,56,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection 50,000/- 25,000/- 3. Loss of consortium 40,000/- - 4. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 6. Transport charges 5,000/- 5,000/- Total 39,09,664/- 29,16,000/- Rounded off to 39,09,700/- - The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 7. Loss of consortium 40,000/- - 4. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 6. Transport charges 5,000/- 5,000/- Total 39,09,664/- 29,16,000/- Rounded off to 39,09,700/- - The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 7. C.M.A.No.1173 of 2021 [M.C.O.P.No.6769 of 2014] (i) Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submits that it is the case of claimant that the deceased was working as an Admin Executive in M/s.Venkateswara Foods, Chennai and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. Absolutely, no documentary proof was produced to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal had fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.20,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.28,56,000/- as compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. The contention of learned counsel is that in the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, learned counsel prays this Court for proper reduction of compensation. (ii) Learned counsel for first respondent/claimant made his submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal. (iii) Since only the quantum of compensation is challenged in the present appeal, this Court is not dealing with the other aspects of the award. (iv) This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. (v) The accident took place in the year 2014. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, the amount of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any documentary proof, is on the higher side. Hence, this Court fixes a sum of Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased to arrive at a just and reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the compensation payable under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is recalculated as follows: Monthly Income Rs. 15,000/- Add: 40% future prospects Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 21,000/- Less: Personal expenses (1/2) Rs. 10,500/- Rs. 10,500/- Annual Income (10500 x 12) Rs. 1,26,000/- Multiplier x 17 Rs. 21,42,000/- Further, the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is set aside. Instead, a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards filial consortium. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Accordingly, the modified compensation payable would be: Sl. 10,500/- Rs. 10,500/- Annual Income (10500 x 12) Rs. 1,26,000/- Multiplier x 17 Rs. 21,42,000/- Further, the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is set aside. Instead, a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards filial consortium. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Accordingly, the modified compensation payable would be: Sl. No. Compensation awarded under the head Award of the Tribunal Award of this Court 1. Loss of dependency 28,56,000/- 21,42,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection 25,000/- - 3. Filial consortium - 80,000/- 4. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 6. Transport charges 5,000/- 5,000/- Total 29,16,000/- 22,57,000/- 8. C.M.A.No.1176 of 2021 [M.C.O.P.No.2829 of 2014] (i) Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submits that it is the case of claimants that the deceased Kathirvel was working as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police and was earning a sum of Rs.36,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.P5 – Pay Slip, had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.27,993/-, added 30% towards future prospects and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.36,391/-. It is the contention of learned counsel that the deceased was aged 51 years at the time of accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have added 15% of the salary towards future prospects. Instead, the Tribunal had added 30% towards future prospects. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal needs proper reduction by way of re-calculation. (ii) Countering the said submission, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants submits that as per Ex.P5 – Pay Slip, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.34,072/-. But, the Tribunal had taken only the net income of Rs.27,993/- as the monthly income of the deceased. In such circumstances, absolutely there is no need to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) Since only the quantum of compensation is challenged in the present appeal, this Court is not dealing with the other aspects of the award. (iv) This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. (v) The deceased was aged 51 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, only 15% has to be added towards future prospects. However, the Tribunal had added 30% towards future prospects. (iv) This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. (v) The deceased was aged 51 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, only 15% has to be added towards future prospects. However, the Tribunal had added 30% towards future prospects. At the same time, it could be seen that the Tribunal had taken only the net income of the deceased as the monthly income. If the gross salary of Rs.34,072/- is fixed as the monthly income of the deceased, the compensation payable under the head ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.38,40,850/- [34,072*12+,15% (-) 27,019 (I.T) * 13 (-) 1/3). However, the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.37,84,664/- as compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. Therefore, absolutely, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. In the result, C.M.A.No.1173 of 2021 is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs.29,16,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs.22,57,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the reduced compensation of Rs.22,57,000/-, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares, as apportioned by Tribunal, on due application. The share of the minor respondent shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in anyone of the nationalized bank till she attains majority. The first respondent/mother of the minor is entitled to withdraw interest once in three months towards taking care of the minor. C.M.A.No.1176 of 2021 is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.