JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2920 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation against the award dated 07.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2920 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The appellant/Transport Corporation is respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2920 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Mageshwari, who died in the accident that took place on 11/12.03.2017. 3. According to the respondents, on the date of accident, i.e., on 11/12.03.2017 at about 12.00 A.M., while the deceased Mageshwari was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-01-AN-1576, from Tambaram to K.K.Nagar – Jafferkhanpet and when she was alighting from the said bus at BSNL bus stop, J.N. 100 feet Road, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, the driver of the bus moved the bus at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the said Mageshwari fell down at the said bus stop and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Mageshwari sustained injuries and died in the hospital. Therefore, the respondents filed the above claim petition claiming compensation as against the appellant/Transport Corporation. 4. The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the bus drove the bus at moderate speed. When the bus was about to stop at Kasi Theatre bus stop at 24.00 hours on 11/12.03.2017 and the automatic doors of the bus were opened, the deceased Mageshwari, who was rushing at the foot steps in a sleepy condition to get down, alighted in a haste manner before the bus could completely stop at the bus stop, fell down, sustained injuries and invited the accident. Thereafter, the driver of the bus informed about the accident to the Accident Investigation Wing of the appellant/Transport Corporation and also to the Police authorities. Thereafter, the driver of the bus informed about the accident to the Accident Investigation Wing of the appellant/Transport Corporation and also to the Police authorities. Based on the hearsay complaint by the 1st respondent, husband of the deceased,Traffic Investigation Wing, Guindy, registered an F.I.R. against the driver of the bus, without any proper enquiry. Rough sketch prepared by the Investigator of the Accident Investigation Wing of the appellant/Transport Corporation would clearly establish the manner of accident, place of occurrence and negligence on the part of the deceased Mageshwari. The driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. In any event, the compensation claimed by the respondents is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, husband of the deceased,examined himself as P.W.1, one G.Boopalan, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 23 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P23. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined one Ramalingam, the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and marked copy of the rough sketch 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 bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents. 7. Against the said award dated 07.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.2920 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present appeal. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation contended that the accident has occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased Mageshwari, who was getting down from the bus in a sleepy condition and invited the accident. The appellant examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and proved that the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal without appreciating the evidence of the driver of the bus as R.W.1, erroneously relying on the contents of F.I.R., fixed entire negligence on the driver of the bus. Mere filing of F.I.R. against the driver of the bus is not substantial piece of evidence to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. Mere filing of F.I.R. against the driver of the bus is not substantial piece of evidence to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. The learned counsel further contended that according to the respondents, the deceased was doing transport business and tailoring work and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month at the time of accident. The respondents did not file any documents to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal erroneously fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.27,500/- (Rs.22,500/- in transport business + Rs.5,000/- in tailoring business) and granted excessive amount as compensation. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are also excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 9. Though notice has been served on the respondents and their names are printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire materials on record. 11. According to the respondents, the deceased Mageshwari was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and while she was getting down at BSNL bus stop, J.N. 100 feet road, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, the driver of the bus took the bus at high speed before the said Mageshwari could get down, due to which, she fell down and sustained injuries. In spite of treatment given, she died in the hospital. In support of their contention, they examined the eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus as Ex.P1. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that the accident has occurred only due to negligence of the deceased. Before the bus could stop in the bus stop, the deceased, who was in sleeping condition, rushed to get down from the bus, fell down on her own negligence and sustained injuries. In support of their contention, they examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. R.W.1 deposed as that of the averments made in the counter statement. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence of R.W.1 and has not given any reason for rejecting the evidence of R.W.1. F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus. In support of their contention, they examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. R.W.1 deposed as that of the averments made in the counter statement. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence of R.W.1 and has not given any reason for rejecting the evidence of R.W.1. F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus. P.W.2, eye-witness deposed that due to negligence of the driver of the bus, accident has occurred. The appellant has not examined any independent witness to disprove the evidence of P.W.2. In view of the same, finding of the Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus is not interfered with. 12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the claim of the respondents that the deceased Mageshwari was owning five goods vehicle bearing Registration Nos.TN-04-M-6667, TN-07-V-8830, TN-20-BZ-5356, TN-05-U-4203 and TN-07-S-5756, she was carrying on transport business and also doing tailoring business and was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month. The respondents have produced copy of the Registration Book of five vehicles and marked the same as Exs.P9 to P13. They also produced bank statement of the deceased and marked the same as Ex.P14 series. The Tribunal considering the pass book Ex.P14 series, came to the conclusion that entries were made from 01.01.2014 to 23.01.2019 and there was no particulars of amount of profit made by the partnership firm for certain periods from 01.01.2014 to 23.01.2019, fixed notional income of the deceased in transport business as Rs.22,500/- (Rs.4,500/- X 5) per month taking into consideration that she would have earned Rs.4,500/- per day from one vehicle. The Tribunal also considering the claim of the respondents that the deceased was doing tailoring business, fixed Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.27,500/- (Rs.22,500/- + Rs.5,000/-) per month as notional income of the deceased. The said reasoning of the Tribunal for fixing Rs.27,500/- as notional income of the deceased is not correct. The respondents have not produced any document to show that 1st respondent has not continued the said business and lost entire income after the death of his wife. In view of the same, notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.27,500/- is excessive. The respondents have not produced any document to show that 1st respondent has not continued the said business and lost entire income after the death of his wife. In view of the same, notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.27,500/- is excessive. Considering the entire materials that the deceased was owner of five vehicles, this Court feels that it would be just and reasonable to fix a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P7/copy of school certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC (Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier 15'. There are four dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses. By fixing a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.28,35,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + 6000 (Rs.15,000/- X 40%) X 12 X 15 X 3/4). In addition to above, the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium to the 1st respondent, loss of estate and transportation, which are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 to 4, who are minor children of the deceased, which is excessive and hence, the same is hereby reduced to Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: S.No Description Amount  awarded by  Tribunal Amount  awarded by this  Court Award  confirmed or  enhanced or  (Rs) (Rs) granted or  reduced 1. Loss of  dependency 46,20,000 28,35,000 Reduced 2. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 3. Loss of  consortium to  the 1st  respondent 40,000 40,000 Confirmed 4. Funeral  expenses 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 5. Loss of love  and affection to  the respondents  2 to 4 3,00,000 1,20,000 Reduced 6. Transportation 10,000 10,000 Confirmed Total 50,00,000 30,35,000 Reduced by  Rs.19,65,000/- 13. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Loss of  consortium to  the 1st  respondent 40,000 40,000 Confirmed 4. Funeral  expenses 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 5. Loss of love  and affection to  the respondents  2 to 4 3,00,000 1,20,000 Reduced 6. Transportation 10,000 10,000 Confirmed Total 50,00,000 30,35,000 Reduced by  Rs.19,65,000/- 13. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs.30,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw his respective share of the award amount, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The shares of the minor respondents 2 to 4 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minors attain majority. The 1st respondent being father of the minor respondents 2 to 4 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 to 4. The appellant/Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2920 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.