JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree order made in M.C.O.P.No. 1325 of 2014 dated 16.09.2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Court, Thanjavur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2014 dated 16.09.2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Thanjavur. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the claimants in the claim petition. The first respondent herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2014, claiming compensation for the death of one Jeyaraman, in an accident that took place on 28.09.2010. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,46,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Forty Six Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2014 is as follows: On 28.09.2010, at about 04.30 p.m., the deceased Jeyaraman and four others travelled in motor tricycle driven by one Ravi. At that time, a Government bus bearing registration No.TN-49-N-1792 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the tricycle and the deceased died due to the accident. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent therein is as follows: It was the driver of the tricycle, who was negligent. He was driving the tricycle in a negligent manner and invited the accident. The age and income of the deceased are all denied. The claim is excessive. 5. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,46,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Forty Six Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the appellant. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the tricycle was responsible for the accident. 17,46,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Forty Six Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the appellant. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the tricycle was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal failed to fix the entire negligence on the rider of the tricycle and wrongly fixed the liability on the appellant. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), which is too high. The Tribunal added 30% additional income towards future prospects and that the deduction of 1/4th of the income for the own expenses is wrong. The award under various other heads is excessive. 7. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the tricycle is only meant for carrying goods and it is not a passenger vehicle. The deceased is not entitled to travel in the vehicle. There is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was the tricycle, which was driven by the rider in a rash and negligent manner that caused the accident. The deceased travelled in a vehicle fully knowing that he is not authorised to travel in the said vehicle. There is no proof for the income of the deceased. Ex.P4 is only a note book for a period of six months. Ex.P5 is a salary certificate for a period of 27 days. The author of Ex.P5 was not examined to prove the document. 8. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that only a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month can be taken as the notional income. In support of this contention, a judgment of this Court in the case of United Insurance Company Limited v. Samiyathal and others reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 455 is cited. 9. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that adding 30% for future prospects is wrong and that as per Praney Sethi case, only 25% has to be added towards future prospects and that the claimants are entitled only for Rs.70,000/- towards conventional charges and that the award amount fixed by the Tribunal is to be modified. 10. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the deceased was a part time vegetable vendor. 10. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the deceased was a part time vegetable vendor. During evening hours, he was doing welding work and he has completed a course and a certificate was marked as Ex.P3 and a letter from Keerthi Industries was marked as Ex.P5. From the vegetable business, the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per month and from the welding work, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. The dependants are four in number and the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) for each of the claimants for loss of love and affection. 11. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that there was no oral and documentary evidence to support Ex.P3 and that Ex.P5, the salary certificate was not proved through the employer and that the certificate was only for the period of 27 days. 12. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and from Ex.P1, FIR, it is decided that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident. 13. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and that the accident took place at about 04.30 a.m., which proves that the deceased was proceeding to purchase vegetable for his business at the time of accident. Ex.A4 is the hand book for maintaining the accounts for vegetable business. 14. The owner of Keerthi Industries was not examined. Ex.P5 is for a period of 27 days. In the above circumstances, it is decided that Ex.P5 is not proved. The income through welding is not proved. The deceased might have received Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month from doing welding work. As per the dictum fixed by the HONOURABLE Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC), the notional income for the vegetable vendor is fixed as Rs.6,500/-. Hence, the monthly income is fixed as Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only). After deducting 1/4th for his own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to his family. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is 48 years. As per Sarala Verma case, for 48 years old self-employed person, 30% has to be added towards future prospects. After deducting 1/4th for his own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to his family. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is 48 years. As per Sarala Verma case, for 48 years old self-employed person, 30% has to be added towards future prospects. The monthly income is calculated as Rs.7,800/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only). After applying multiplier 13', the loss of income is calculated as Rs.12,16,800/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixteen Thousand and Eight Hundred only). As per the dictum of the HONOURABLE Supreme Court in Praney Sethi case, a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) is awarded towards conventional charges. In total, a sum of Rs.12,86,800/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Eight Hundred only) is awarded as compensation. 15. Hence, it is decided that the respondents are entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,86,800/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 16. The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.12,86,800/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Eight Hundred only) with 7.5% interest from date of the claim petition till the date of realization with cost and the amount has to be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the award amount with interest after deducting any amount received by them earlier. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. Excess amount, if any deposited shall be refunded to the appellant. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.