JUDGMENT : Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 05.10.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore. 2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- as compensation for the death of their son viz., S. Tamilselvan, who died in the accident that took place on 17.01.2011. 3. According to the appellants, on the date of accident i.e., on 17.01.2011 at 4.30. p.m., while the deceased Tamilselvan was riding in his two wheeler along with his friend K. Venkatesan as a pillion rider at Velari koot road, Timiri, Arcot taluk, Vellore District, on the extreme left side of the road, the Inspector of Police, Timiri Police Station, who was employed under the 1st respondent, drove the Police jeep in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler driven by the deceased. Due to the said impact, the said Tamilselvan fell down from the two wheeler and thus, the accident has occurred. In the accident, the said Tamilselvan sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the appellants filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents. 4. The 1st respondent, owner of the jeep filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that at the time of accident, the deceased Tamilselvan rode the two wheeler along with one Venkatesan as pillion rider in a rash and negligent manner with drunken mood in the opposite direction. The Inspector of Police drove the Police jeep slowly on the left side of the road and after noticing that the deceased was riding the two wheeler in a drunken mood, slowed down his jeep to the minimum speed to extreme left side of the road. The Inspector of Police drove the Police jeep slowly on the left side of the road and after noticing that the deceased was riding the two wheeler in a drunken mood, slowed down his jeep to the minimum speed to extreme left side of the road. Even then the deceased rode the two wheeler at high speed and dashed against the jeep and invited the accident. So the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the deceased. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation for their son's fault. The owner and insurer of the two wheeler driven by the deceased were not made as parties to the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence, the 1st respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. The 2nd respondent herein is not connected with the alleged jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and he is unnecessary party to the claim petition. In any event, the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd appellant, father of the deceased, examined himself as P.W.1, one Venkatesan, pillion rider of the two wheeler driven by the deceased, was examined as P.W.2 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents examined one Mr. Mathiyarasan, Inspector of Police as R.W.1 and marked copy of the judgment in C.C.No.80 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Walaja, as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and the deceased Tamilselvan was also contributed to the accident, fixed 50 : 50 contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.11,07,500/- after deducting 50% contributory negligence as compensation to the appellants and dismissed the claim petition as against the 2nd respondent as he is no way responsible for the accident. 7. 7. Challenging the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent. P.W.2, eye-witness to the accident has categorically deposed that the driver of the jeep is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal having held so, erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased merely on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier considering the age of the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 18' on the basis of the age of the deceased. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and prayed for setting aside 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased and for enhancement of compensation. 9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents made his submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard through video-conferencing the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record. 11. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and the appellants are entitled to compensation only from the 1st respondent and dismissed the claim petition as against the 2nd respondent. The appellant has come out with the present appeal contending that the Tribunal having fixed entire negligence on the driver of the jeep, erroneously fixed 50% contributory negligence on the deceased after holding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and 50% deduction from the compensation arrived is unsustainable. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has taken age of the mother of the deceased for applying multiplier and granted lesser amount as compensation towards loss of dependency. 12. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has taken age of the mother of the deceased for applying multiplier and granted lesser amount as compensation towards loss of dependency. 12. From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent to pay the compensation. In the conclusion paragraph, the Tribunal while arriving at compensation, fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, granted 50% enhancement towards future prospects, applied multiplier 15' taking into age of the mother of the deceased, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, arrived at a sum of Rs.20,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + 7500 [Rs.15,000/- X 50%] X 12 X 15 X 50%) as compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.10,12,500/- as compensation after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence. 13. From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep belonging to the 1st respondent. Having held so, in the operative portion of the award, the Tribunal has deducted 50% contributory negligence from the total compensation arrived and awarded a sum of Rs.10,12,500/- as total compensation towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal without fixing any negligence on the deceased erroneously by nonapplication of mind deducted 50% towards contributory negligence and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The appellants are entitled to get the entire compensation awarded. The Tribunal applied multiplier 15 taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and granted 50% enhancement towards future prospects. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P2/Post-mortem certificate. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC) (National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi), the age of the deceased is basis for applying multiplier and the appellants are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The correct multiplier applicable for the age group of 21 years is 18'. In view of the above, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + 6000 [Rs.15,000/- X 40%] X 12 X 18 X 50%). The correct multiplier applicable for the age group of 21 years is 18'. In view of the above, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + 6000 [Rs.15,000/- X 40%] X 12 X 18 X 50%). The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection to the appellants, loss of estate and funeral expenses are meagre and hence, the same are hereby enhanced to Rs.80,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. A sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation is just and reasonable and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. 14. It is well settled that the Tribunal and the Courts have to award just compensation. Though the claimants have claimed lesser compensation, the Courts have power to grant just compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded by 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 or reduced 1. Loss of dependency 10,12,500 22,68,000 Enhanced 2. Loss of love and affection 50,000 80,000 Enhanced 3. Loss of estate 5,000 15,000 Enhanced 4. Loss of consortium 25,000 - Set aside 5. Transportation 5,000 5,000 Confirmed 6. Funeral expenses 10,000 15,000 Enhanced Total 11,07,500 23,83,000 Enhanced by Rs.12,75,500/- 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.11,07,500/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.23,83,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellants are directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. It is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the delay period on the amount of Rs.12,75,500/- enhanced by this Court as per the order of this Court dated 03.10.2019 made in C.M.P.No.9263 of 2019 in C.M.A.SR.No.36070 of 2018. The 1st respondent is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount now determined by this Court as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. This appeal is dismissed as against the 2nd respondent. No costs.