JUDGMENT : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panruti. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.03.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panruti. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panruti, the appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal seeking to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. The case in brief is as follows: On 13.09.2008, while the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.PT-1-AK-8073 at Puducherry to Chennai near Paramankeni, the driver of the third respondent's Car bearing Reg. No.TN- 07-AP-1510 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately, he was taken treatment at PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry. He was shifted to Appollo Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. Thereafter, he died. 4. Ms.Elveera Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, the Insurance Company had filed this appeal regarding the liability and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Panruti. She further submitted that the Tribunal while fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and without deducting income tax had calculated the same with the multiplier 16 and therefore, the award is excessive and the total amount arrived at Rs.60,46,470/-. 5. Ms.K.Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, disputed the claim of the learned counsel for the appellant stating that while calculating the loss of income, the Tribunal had not calculated the future prospects. On the basis of the income tax assesment furnished as documents on the side of the claimants for the past three financial years, the Tribunal had arrived at a income, per month paid by the deceased/Jayaraj. Also the income, that was fixed by the Tribunal, after deducting the income tax. Therefore, the question of deduction of income tax does not arise. This appeal filed by the Insurance Company lack merits and it has to be dismissed. 6. Also the income, that was fixed by the Tribunal, after deducting the income tax. Therefore, the question of deduction of income tax does not arise. This appeal filed by the Insurance Company lack merits and it has to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also stated that the accident occurred on 13.09.2008, it was a collission between the two wheeler and the car driven by the third respondent. Eventhough, the first respondent owner cum driver of the car, engaged counsel before the Tribunal and contested the claim of the claimants, he had not adduced evidence before the Tribunal. The deceased/Jayaraj died one month after the date of the accident. Therefore, the third respondent as owner of the car is instructed to protect the interest of the Insurance Company by disputing the manner of accident and adducing evidence before the Tribunal. He had failed to do so. Also he had claimed damages for the accident for his vehicle from the second respondent/Insurance Company. While so, he is duty bound to protect the Insurance Company, but he had not done so. Therefore, for the compensation that is to be granted to the claimants, the first respondent is to be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. If this Court decides to grant the compensation and orders the second respondent/Insurance Company to grant the award, this Court may order to recover the same, from the first respondent/owner of the vehicle. In his reply notice given by the second respondent/Insurance Company, it is stated that he does not know who was the driver of the vehicle on the date of accident before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate and he pleaded guilty. Therefore, the Inurance Company had issued notice seeking details of the driver of the vehicle for which he had replied that the first respondent was not aware who was the driver of the vehicle/offending vehicle/insured vehicle on the date of the accident. Therefore, the second respondent/Insurance Company is entitled to recover the dues from the first respondent/owner of the vehicle. He had furnished the following Rulings reported in 2018 (1) TNMAC 148 (SC) (Pappu and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr.). 7. Point for consideration Whether the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, the second respondent/Insurance Company is entitled to recover the dues from the first respondent/owner of the vehicle. He had furnished the following Rulings reported in 2018 (1) TNMAC 148 (SC) (Pappu and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr.). 7. Point for consideration Whether the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Perused the records and counter in MCOP.No. 49 of 2012 and the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panruti and the grounds of appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 9. As per the said Rulings, if the owner of vehicle is unable to prove the facts within his knowledge that the driver was authorized by him to drive and had a valid driving licence, onus does not shift to Insurer. Name of driver and other details not disclosed by the original owner of the vehicle. Mere production of valid insurance certificate not enough to make insurer liable. 10. Since the first respondent/Insurance Company has not furnished the details sought by the second respondent/Insurance Company and also by the respondents/claimants, the owner of the vehicle had not co-operated with the investigation. Therefore, the Tribunal has to draw adverse inference against the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the appellant may be directed to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 11. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal and the rulings submitted by the appellant/Insurance Company, it is found that a reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- per month is fixed as notional income. Since the age of the deceased was 39 years on the date of his death and he was running a business. Instead of calculating Rs.30,000/- as income, this Court fixes income as Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal by inadvertence did not include the future prospects while calculating the compensation. Therefore, towards future prospects 40% of the income could be added. Therefore, the separate head of “future prospects” awarded by the Tribunal is struck off. Instead of calculating Rs.30,000/- as income, this Court fixes income as Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal by inadvertence did not include the future prospects while calculating the compensation. Therefore, towards future prospects 40% of the income could be added. Therefore, the separate head of “future prospects” awarded by the Tribunal is struck off. Loss of Dependency is arrived at as follows: Monthly income = Rs.20,000/- Annual Income = Rs.2,40,000/- Income Tax Upto Rs.1,10,000/- = Nil Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.1,50,000 - 10% Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,50,000 - 20% Rs.2,50,000/- and above - 30% Income tax payable =1,10,000-1,50,000 =4000/- = 2,40,000 – 1,50,000 =90000x20% =18000 =4000+18000=22000 Annual Income – less tax =2,40,000-22000 =2,18,000 Annual Income =2,18,000 Add 40% future prospects =87,200= 3,05,200 Taking the multiplier as 15 for the age group 35 to 40 years Loss of Dependency Rs.3,05,200x15x2/3 Rs.30,52,000/- 12. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads like “loss of consortium” and “Funeral Expenses” were too low. Considering the age of the deceased, this Court enhances the loss of consortium from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and considering the present cost of living and the date of accident, this Court enhances the funeral expenses from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 13. Pain and Sufferings cannot be sustained as it is granted. It is to be granted only in the case of injury. Here, it is a fatal case. Therefore, pain and sufferings is not attracted and Rs.50,000/- under that head is struck off. The future prospects could be added to the loss of dependency and therefore future prospects also to be struck off. 14. Since the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under all the other heads are just and fair, the same are hereby confirmed. The break-up details of the amounts awarded under various heads are as follows: Sl. No Head under which the compensation is awarded Amounts awarded by the Tribunal Amounts awarded by this Court 1 Loss of Income 38,40,000 30,52,000 2 Medical Expenses 20,06,470 20,06,470 3 Attendant Charges 15,000 15,000 4 For Funeral Expenses 10,000 15,000 5 Loss of Consortium 25,000 40,000 6 Loss of Love and Affection 50,000 50,000 7 Pain and Sufferings 35000 - 8 Loss of Estate 15,000 15,000 9 Future Prospects 50,000 - Total 60,46,470 51,53,470 15. The Point for consideration is answered in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company against the respondents/Claimants. 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed. The Point for consideration is answered in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company against the respondents/Claimants. 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount, which we have determined in this appeal, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Panruti with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit along with costs if any as awarded by the Tribunal, through RTGS or NEFT method as held by this Court in (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kannur Vs. Rajesh and two others) 2016 (1) TN MAC 433, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the first claimant shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.26,53,470/- with accrued interest and the second claimant shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with accrued interest. The appellant is directed to pay appropriate Court fees within a period of two months, failing which, he is not entitled to claim interest on the award amount. No costs.