JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur.) Common Judgment V.M. Velumani, J. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant- Transport Corporation against the common judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur. 2. The parties and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one and the same and hence, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petitions, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha, respectively, who died in the accident that took place on 11.09.2011, against the respondents 2 and 3 who are the driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and Insurance Company of the Santro Car in which the deceased persons traveled. 4. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha were travelling with Harihara Sudhan and Balachandran in a Santro Car bearing Registration No.TN-38-AB-1666, along the Tiruppur to Dharapuram Main road from South to North direction, driven by Harihara Sudhan in a very slow speed, cautious manner, adhering the road traffic rules and regulations. While nearing R.R.D. Mill, the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-1960 owned by the appellant- Transport Corporation who was coming in the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to overtake another vehicle which was proceeding ahead, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the Santro Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the occupants of the Santro Car sustained fatal injuries. In the accident, the occupants of the Santro Car sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and hence, the 1st respondent filed claim petitions against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Transport Corporation as driver and owner of the Bus respectively and 3rd respondent- Insurance Company as insurer of the Santro Car in which the deceased persons traveled. 5. The appellant-Transport Corporation and 2nd respondent jointly filed counter statement in all the claim petitions and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions. According to the appellant and 2nd respondent, Harihara Sudhan, driver of the Santro Car, while trying to overtake another vehicle, lost control and invited accident. FIR is also registered against the deceased Harihara Sudhan. The 1st respondent, knowing fully well that the Santro Car has been insured with the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company only for Personal Accident Coverage and the claimants are not entitled for compensation more than Rs.2,00,000/-, with an ulterior motive to claim compensation, has purposefully impleaded the 2nd respondent and appellant in the claim petitions. Hence, the 2nd respondent and appellant- Transport Corporation are not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, injuries sustained and treatment taken by the deceased, to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 6. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement in all the claim petitions and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petitions. According to the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation. The complaint given against the 2nd respondent is also pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. Hence, the appellant-Transport Corporation and 2nd respondent are liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. At the time of accident, the deceased driver Harihara Sudhan did not possess valid Registration Certificate for the Santro Car and thereby, violated policy conditions. The complaint given against the 2nd respondent is also pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. Hence, the appellant-Transport Corporation and 2nd respondent are liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. At the time of accident, the deceased driver Harihara Sudhan did not possess valid Registration Certificate for the Santro Car and thereby, violated policy conditions. In any event, the 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, injuries sustained and treatment taken to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 7. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 34 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P34. The appellant examined four witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.4 and marked 9 documents as Exs.R1 to R9. 8. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus as well as Harihara Sudhan/driver of the Car, fixed 60:40 negligence on both of them respectively, awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,93,000/- and Rs.9,19,340/- as compensation to the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions respectively. The Tribunal directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay 60% and 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay 40% of the award amount as compensation to the 1st respondent. 9. Against the said common award dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, the appellant – Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeals. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that on the date of accident, the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation was driving the Bus at normal speed from Tiruppur to Theni. When the Bus was proceeding near Kundadam pirivu, the Santro Car bearing Registration No.TN-38-AB-1666, which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, overtook another Car, without seeing the on coming Bus in an uncontrollable speed. The driver of the Bus, on seeing the Santro Car, turned the Bus to the extreme left side of the road, applied sudden brake and stopped the Bus in order to avoid collusion with the Car and to save the lives of the passengers who traveled in the Bus. Inspite of the same, the accident occurred. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the Santro Car. Inspite of the same, the accident occurred. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the Santro Car. FIR was also registered only against Harihara Sudhan, driver of the Car. The criminal case is pending against the driver of the Car. The appellant proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the Car by examining independent witness, an Auto driver as R.W.3. The Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation also contributed 60% negligence to the accident, instead of fixing entire negligence on the part of the driver of the Car. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the total compensation granted by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions are excessive and prayed for setting aside the common award of the Tribunal. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in all the appeals made submissions in support of the common award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of all the appeals. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation. The 1st respondent has impleaded the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company only as a formal party. The Tribunal erroneously fixed 40% negligence on the part of the driver of the Santro Car and directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay 40% of the compensation to the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company and perused the entire materials available on record. 14. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the 1st respondent that while the driver of the Car viz., Harihara Sudhan was driving the Santro Car from Tiruppur to Dharapuram, the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, who was coming in the opposite direction, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Santro Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the following persons sustained fatal injuries - Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha. Based on these averments, the 1st respondent filed 4 claim petitions, claiming various amounts as compensation for the death of Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha. To substantiate his stand, the 1st respondent examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 34 documents as Exs.P1 to P34. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation that while the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus was driving the Bus at a moderate speed, the driver of the Santro Car drove the Santro Car in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake another Car. On seeing the same, the driver of the Bus applied sudden brake and stopped the Bus. Inspite of the same, the accident has occurred. To substantiate their contention, the appellant-Transport Corporation examined 4 witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.4. The driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1 and independent witness/Auto driver was examined as R.W.3. The Tribunal considering the fact that FIR was lodged by the driver of the Bus within one hour, furnishing the details of the deceased persons, did not accept the contents of FIR. Further, taking note of photographs marked as Ex.R7 and evidence and damage caused to the Santro Car, held that the Santro Car would have been shifted for clearing the traffic. The Police did not examine R.W.1 and R.W.2. The Tribunal considering the place of accident and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, held that both the drivers are responsible for the accident and fixed 60% negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus and 40% on the part of the driver of the Santro Car. Considering all the above materials and the fact that the Bus is a heavy vehicle, there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal fixing 60% negligence on the driver of the Bus. 15. As far as the quantum of compensation granted in C.M.A.Nos.1181 & 1200 of 2022 [M.C.O.P.Nos.207 and 211 of 2012] are concerned, the 1st respondent claimed that the deceased Kalavathy was working as a Sales Supervisor in Shri Kumaran Cottons, Tiruppur and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month; deceased Sudha was running a business as a Proprietor in the name and style 'Sri Venkateswara Enterprises' and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The 1st respondent failed to prove the avocation and income of both the deceased persons. In the absence of any evidence with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased Kalavathy and Sudha at Rs.6,000/- and Rs.6,500/- per month respectively. The accident is of the year 2011. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal, after fixing the notional income, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of both the deceased persons and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], applied the correct multipliers 11' & 17' respectively and awarded compensation towards loss of income in both the claim petitions. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive, warranting interference by this Court. 16. As far as the quantum of compensation granted in C.M.A.Nos.1163 and 1169 of 2022 [M.C.O.P.Nos.205 and 195 of 2012] are concerned, the deceased minor Pranav Kanna was aged 4 years and minor Suruthiksha was 3 months old at the time of accident. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased minor children at Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per annum respectively and as per II Schedule, applied multiplier 15' and awarded compensation towards loss of income. This Court, in number of cases, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 (Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others), has fixed annual income of the deceased minor at Rs.30,000/-. In view of the same, the annual income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- are not excessive. There is no error in the award of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 17. In the result, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,75,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,93,000/- and Rs.9,19,340/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit are confirmed. 17. In the result, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,75,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,93,000/- and Rs.9,19,340/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit are confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.3,55,800/- and Rs.5,51,604/-, being 60% of the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012 respectively. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.2,37,200/- and Rs.3,67,736/- being 40% of the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012. On such deposit, the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos. 205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012 is permitted to withdraw the respective award amount, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.