JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 25.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai.) 1. C.M.A(MD)Nos.263 and 264 of 2016 were filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company, challenging the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.18,19 and 20 of 2011 on the ground of quantum and contributory negligence. 2. C.M.A(MD)Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2022 were filed by the respective claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation passed in the common judgment in M.C.O.P.Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2022. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. By consent of both the parties, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of common judgment. 5. All these three claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2011 came to be filed in connection with the accident taken place on 21.10.2010 wherein three persons have travelled in the Indigo car bearing Registration No.TN-55-A-D-0001 driven by the driver, namely, Vasanth and the other two persons namely, Vivekanandan and Panneerselvam are the occupants of the car. All the three claim petitions have been filed for the death of the said Vasanth, Vivekanandan and Panneerselvam. The claim petitioners both in the claim petition as well as in their evidence could depose that on 21.10.2010 in the morning, the car bearing Registration No.TN-55-A-D-0001 had driven by Vasanth along with Vivekanandan and they went to Chennai Airport to receive Panneerselvam, who came from abroad to attend the death of his mother at Alangudi. After receiving Panneerselvam, when they were return to Alangudi moving from west to east at about 11.15 p.m., at Ulundurpet by-pass road, near Viruthachalam bridge, when the Indigo car driven by Vasanth, and Vivekandan and Panneerselvam are the occupants of the car, at the time, the lorry owned by the first respondent insured with the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN-32-1566 was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and without noticing the car following them, the lorry all of a sudden on the western side of the mud road portion, without giving any signal or hand indication turned on the right hand side. In the said process, the Indigo car driven by Vasanth has dashed on the backside of the lorry and the occupants Vivekandan and Panneerselvam and the driver Vasanth all the three died in the crush injury on the spot and according to PW1 evidence, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry. Ex.P1-FIR was registered against the driver of the lorry. 6. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence had been adduced. 7. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal has held that the accident has taken place due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicle and also apportioned the contributory negligence on 75% on the driver of the first respondent lorry and 25% of the driver of the Indigo car(Vasanth), whose legal heirs are the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2022 and awarded compensation. 8. Challenging the fixing of 25% on the part of the driver of the car, the appellant insurance company in M.C.O.P.Nos.19 and 20 of 2011 has filed C.M.A(MD)Nos.263 and 264 of 2016. After service of summon in the above CMAs, all the three claim petitioners have been filed their respective C.M.A(MD)Nos.60,61 and 62 of 2022. 9. It remains to be stated that though the insurance company chooses to challenge the award passed in the M.C.O.P.Nos.19 and 20 of 2011 in C.M.A(MD)Nos.263 and 264 of 2016 on the ground of contributory negligence, however, has not filed any appeal in respect of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2011. In the absence of any appeal against the common judgment rendered therein, wherein the insurance company has not filed an appeal against one of the judgment, the finding in respect of 25% of contributory negligence fixed on the driver of the deceased cannot be found fault independently. 10. Heard the respective counsel on both side on contributory negligence as well as quantum of compensation. 11. 10. Heard the respective counsel on both side on contributory negligence as well as quantum of compensation. 11. On the point of contributory negligence as advanced by the appellant insurance company in the above two CMAs, this Court finds that as per the documents filed before the tribunal, on the date of the accident, both the drivers of the vehicle having valid license, valid permit and valid insurance and hence the only point of contributory negligence and the quantum arises for consideration. 12. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry, without making any indication or signal as required, has turned on the left hand side of the lorry to park the lorry in the mud road. When the vehicle, which is proceedings over the another vehicle wanted to turn left or right, it has to put necessary signal so as the vehicle following will maintain the distance and hence, it is seen from the lower Court records viz., the motor vehicle inspector's report Exs.P8 and P9 has come to the conclusion that the car, which is following the lorry could have kept 'sufficient distance' so as to give sufficient space for halt the vehicle on sudden break. Had the driver of the car has taken sufficient care to maintain sufficient distance between the two vehicles, he could have also avoided the accident. It appears from the records that the lorry has suddenly turned on the left hand side for parking in the mud road, hence, the tribunal has fixed 75% of the negligence on the driver of the lorry. 12(a). The legal representatives of the deceased driver Vasanth are filed M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2011. The preliminary principle of law of negligence is duty to take care and duty to due care. When the Indigo car is following another vehicle, the driver of the Indigo car namely, the deceased Vasanth should have exercised due care and foreseeability. If he had due care, there is feasibility that the vehicle proceeding in his front could be parked on the left hand side without any hindrance. When the Indigo car is following another vehicle, the driver of the Indigo car namely, the deceased Vasanth should have exercised due care and foreseeability. If he had due care, there is feasibility that the vehicle proceeding in his front could be parked on the left hand side without any hindrance. If the driver of the first respondent lorry has taken due care in seeing the rear mirror as to the vehicle followed the vehicle driven by him, he could not have taken the left hand side to park on the eastern side and he should have been used the mirror to check whether any vehicle is coming behind him and hence, I find that the tribunal has rightly fixed the 75% liability on him and 25% is fixed upon the deceased Vasant-driver of the Indigo car. Such apportionment appears to be just and reasonable and therefore 75:25 fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require any modification and accordingly, the appeals filed by the National Insurance Company in C.M.A(MD)Nos.263 and 264 are negatived and stand dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13. On the point of quantum of compensation both the parties are heard. C.M.A(MD)No.60 of 2022: 14. C.M.A(MD)No.60 of 2022 (MCOP.18 of 2011) the deceased is a car driver Vasanth and at the time of the accident he is 21 years old as could be seen from Ex.P2-postmortem certificate and the driving licence. The accident took place in the year 2010 and hence Rs.9000/- is fixed for the driver and as per Praney Sethi's case, he is entitled for 40% future prospects. Hence, his future prospects comes to Rs. 9000+40%=9000+3600=Rs.12,600/- and multiplier 18' as per Sarla Verma's case is fixed and he is a bachelor and hence deduction is ½ and therefore, the compensation under pecuniary loss sustained by the claim petitioners are reassessed as follows: Rs.12,600x12x18x1/2=Rs.13,60,800/- 15. Since the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2011 are two in number, they are entitled for loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000x2=80,000/-. Further they are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for transportation. Hence, the award is enhanced from Rs.8,70,000/- to Rs. 14,85,800/- at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 16. Since the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2011 are two in number, they are entitled for loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000x2=80,000/-. Further they are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for transportation. Hence, the award is enhanced from Rs.8,70,000/- to Rs. 14,85,800/- at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 16. Since 25% of liability is fixed upon the driver, deceased Vasanth, 25% of the above award amount shall be deducted and the remaining amount (75%) shall be payable by the insurance company of the lorry. 17. In fine, (i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD).No.60 of 2022 stands allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,70,000/- to Rs. 14,85,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No Costs. (ii) Hence, the insurance company namely, the second respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the 75% of the modified enhanced award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited. (iii) On such deposit being made, the claimants/appellants are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. (iv) The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2011): 18. The claim petitioners in C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2022 are the widow and the children of the deceased Vivekanandan. Ex.P13 is the letter head to show that he was working as a driver and accordingly, Rs. 9000/- is fixed as notional income and as per Praney Sethi's case, he is entitled for 40% future prospects. C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2022 (M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2011): 18. The claim petitioners in C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2022 are the widow and the children of the deceased Vivekanandan. Ex.P13 is the letter head to show that he was working as a driver and accordingly, Rs. 9000/- is fixed as notional income and as per Praney Sethi's case, he is entitled for 40% future prospects. Hence, the future prospects comes to Rs.9000+40%=9,000+3,600=Rs.12,600/- and since the age of the deceased is 32 at the time of accident, multiplier 16' as per Sarla Verma's case is fixed and since there are four dependents, deduction is ¼ and therefore, the compensation under pecuniary loss sustained by the claim petitioners are reassessed as follows: Rs.12,600x12x16x3/4= Rs.18,14,400/- 19. Since the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2011 are four in number, the widow of the deceased/1st appellant is entitled for spouse consortium for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and Filial consortium for the other three claim petitioners/children of the deceased and his parents is fixed at Rs.40,000x3=1,20,000/-. Further they are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for transportation. Hence, the award is enhanced from Rs.11,75,000/- to Rs.20,19,400/- at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 20. Since liability is fixed 75:25, 75% of the award amount shall be paid by the insurance company of the lorry, namely, the second respondent and 25% shall be paid by the insurance company of the car, namely, the fourth respondent, since the car is having comprehensive valid policy on the date of accident. 21. In fine, (i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD).No.61 of 2022 stands allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,75,000/- to Rs. 20,19,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No Costs. (ii) Hence, the insurance company namely, the second respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the 75% of the modified enhanced award amount and the fourth respondnent/National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the 25% of the modified enhanced award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited. (iii) On such deposit being made, the major claimants/appellants1,3 &4 are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. (iv) Insofar as the minor claimant/2nd appellant is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit his share in the award amount, in interest bearing fixed deposit, in any one of the nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, till he attains majority. The first appellant, the mother and guardian of the minor claimant/2nd appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest from the fixed deposit made in favour of the minor claimant, once in three months directly from the Bank and utilize the same for the welfare of the minor claimant. (v) The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. C.M.A(MD)No.62 of 2022(M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2011): 22(a). The claim petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Panneerselvam, who had travelled as an occupant in the car was aged about 41 years at the time of accident. His wife widow Dhanalakshmi was examined as PW3 could depose that her husband was working as an Electrical Supervisor and earned Rs.29,000/- p.m. when he was employed in abroad and as per Ex.P17-salary letter issued by the Soudi Company Limited goes to show that the person is employed from 26.02.2002 till 26.02.2010 at the rate of 1350 Soudi Riyal and 21.10.2010 he died in the road transport accident. 22(b).As per Ex.P17, alleged employment in Soudi Arabia was terminated on 26.02.2010 and therefore in between the interregnum period there is no certificate to indicate that he was employed elsewhere. Therefore, the trial court has refused to rely upon Ex.P17-regarding employment in abroad. Ex.P18 is the new and old passport. 22(c). In the said document on 21.10.2010, there is an immigration clearance as could be seen from Ex.P18 is noticed. Had the deceased Panneerselvam was employed on the date of the accident, there should have been an endorsement in the passport immigration regarding his alleged employment, immediately he proceeds the accident. Ex.P18 is the new and old passport. 22(c). In the said document on 21.10.2010, there is an immigration clearance as could be seen from Ex.P18 is noticed. Had the deceased Panneerselvam was employed on the date of the accident, there should have been an endorsement in the passport immigration regarding his alleged employment, immediately he proceeds the accident. Since there was no endorsement either on Ex.P17, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 regarding the nature of the alleged employment in the Soudi Arabia the tribunal has rightly rejected the salary certificate. Such finding rendered by the tribunal does not warrant any interference at this stage and the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Ex.P19 was pressed into service as per the rubber stamp found therein he is said to have been working elsewhere in the Soudi Arabia for Yamaha Steel Industries Company, however, the same is without any endorsement. In the absence of any red seal on Ex.P19 by the Arabian Consulate office at Soudi Arabia, the same cannot be taken into consideration as true and genuine reflecting the alleged employment. Therefore in the absence of any transnational document being produced regarding the admissibility and liability of Ex.P19, the tribunal has rightly rejected the same and fixed Rs.9,000/- as salary. 23.Taking into consideration the nature and education qualification and the other employment as spoken to by PW3, I am of the considered view that the notional income of the deceased may safely to fix at Rs. 12,000/- and as per Pranay Sethi's case, he is entitled for 30% future prospects. Hence the future prospects comes to Rs.12,000+30%=Rs. 12,000+3,600=15,600/- and since the deceased is aged about 41 years as per Ex.P18 multiplier of 14' is to be adopted as per Sarla Verma's case and since there are 4 dependents, deduction is ¼ and therefore, the compensation under pecuniary loss sustained by the claim petitioners are reassessed as follows: Rs.15,600x12x14x3/4=Rs.19,65,600/- 24. Since the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2011 are four in number, the widow of the deceased/1st appellant is entitled for spouse consortium for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and Filial consortium for the other three claim petitioners/children of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 40,000x3=1,20,000/-. Further they are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for transportation. Hence, the award is enhanced from Rs.16,07,000/- to Rs. 21,70,600/- at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 25. 40,000x3=1,20,000/-. Further they are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for transportation. Hence, the award is enhanced from Rs.16,07,000/- to Rs. 21,70,600/- at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 25. Since liability is fixed 75:25, 75% of the award amount shall be paid by the insurance company of the lorry, namely, the second respondent and 25% shall be paid by the insurance company of the car, namely, the fourth respondent, since the car is having comprehensive valid policy on the date of accident. 26. In fine, (i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD).No.62 of 2022 stands allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,07,000/- to Rs. 21,70,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No Costs. (ii) Hence, the insurance company namely, the second respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the 75% of the modified enhanced award amount and the fourth respondnent/National Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the 25% of the modified enhanced award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited. (iii)On such deposit being made, the major claimant/1st appellant is permitted to withdraw her share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. (iv) Insofar as the minor claimants/ appellants 2 to 4 are concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit their share in the award amount, in interest bearing fixed deposit, in any one of the nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, till he attains majority. The first appellant, the mother and guardian of the minor claimants is permitted to withdraw the interest from the fixed deposit made in favour of the minor claimants, once in three months directly from the Bank and utilize the same for the welfare of the minor claimants. (v) The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee.