JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.502 of 2009, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur @ Ponneri.) S. Sounthar, J. 1. Aggrieved by an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvallur, Ponneri, granting a compensation of Rs.1,63,38,000/- in favour of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants, the insurer of offending vehicle has come up with this appeal. 2. The husband of first respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and brother of 5th respondent viz., Beri Sreenivasalu died in a road accident on 26.05.2007, involving a lorry owned by 7th respondent and insured with appellant herein. According to respondents 1 to 5 on 26.05.2007, the deceased and his family members were proceeding from their native place namely Mampattu Village in Andra Pradesh to Meenambakkam Airport at Chennai. They travelled in a Tata Sumo Van bearing registration No.TN-04E-4318 and when they were nearing Thatchur Junction on G.S.T Road, a lorry bearing registration No.TSI-8600 owned by the 7th respondent came in the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle in which, the deceased was travelling. According to respondents 1 to 5, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry owned by the 7th respondent. As a consequence, all the occupants of the Tata Sumo van sustained severe bleeding injuries and the above said Beri Sreenivasalu succumbed to injuries instantly. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the claimant's family and hence, they were constrained to file MCOP.No.502/2009, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ponneri, claiming compensation. 3. The 7th respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance Company by filing a counter, wherein it was stated that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo van, in which the deceased was travelling. They also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and consequently, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on consideration of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry owned by 7th respondent. They also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and consequently, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on consideration of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry owned by 7th respondent. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the 7th respondent and the appellant jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation. 5. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the above appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that though the appellant raised grounds with regard to negligence and liability, at the time of arguments, he has submitted that this Court, by an order dated 05.02.2020 in CMA.No.1019 of 2015 and Cross Objection No.2 of 2020, already held that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant and therefore, he is not questioning the liability and made submissions only with regard to quantum of compensation. He further submitted that as per Ex.P28 and P29, the deceased was working in Nigeria at the time of accident and in case of persons working in foreign country 50% of the earning shall be deducted and only the remaining 50% should be treated as contribution towards the family members/dependants. He relied on the judgment reported in 2020 TANMAC 1 (SC) in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others in support of his contention. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in making an addition of 50% earning towards the future prospects in the absence of any evidence to show that the deceased was in permanent job. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that there are five dependants for the deceased including three minors and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in deducting only 1/4th of the earning towards personal expenses. He also submitted that the respondents produced evidence to show that the deceased has been working continuously from 1992 till the date of accident and hence, he should be deemed to be in permanent job and hence, the Tribunal is justified in adding 50% towards future prospects. He also submitted that the respondents produced evidence to show that the deceased has been working continuously from 1992 till the date of accident and hence, he should be deemed to be in permanent job and hence, the Tribunal is justified in adding 50% towards future prospects. He further submitted that as per Ex.P30 issued by the employer of the deceased, at the time of death, the deceased was drawing salary of 1800 U.S dollars and the foreign exchange conversion rate applicable to the case would be the exchange rate on the date of filing of claim petition. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in C.A.Nos.4945-4946 of 2013, dated 02.07.2013 [Jiju Kuruvila and others Vs. kunjujamma Mohan and others]. 8. As far as the persons working in foreign countries are concerned, the Apex Court has held in a judgment reported in 2022 TANMAC 1 [United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others], that 50% of earnings shall be deducted. The extract of the relevant observations of the Apex Court in this regard is as follows: “9.2. Even though in Sarla Verma (supra), it was held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th, if the number of dependant family members is four, in the present case, we feel that 50% of the Income of the deceased would be required to be deducted, since he was living in a foreign country. The deceased had to maintain an establishment there, and incur expenditure for the same in commensurate with the high cost of living in a foreign country. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court rightly deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses.” In view of the law laid down in the above said case, we feel 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted instead of 1/4th deduction made by the Tribunal. 9. The deceased was working in a company called Indorama Project and Services Limited, on the date of accident as per Exs.P.28 and P.30. A perusal of the appointment order issued to the deceased under Ex.P27 makes it clear that he was appointed in the said company only on 22.03.2006 and he joined duty on 27.08.2006, just 7 months prior to the date of accident. A perusal of the appointment order issued to the deceased under Ex.P27 makes it clear that he was appointed in the said company only on 22.03.2006 and he joined duty on 27.08.2006, just 7 months prior to the date of accident. Hence, the contention of the respondents 1 to 5 that the deceased was working in a permanent job continuously from 1992 is not correct and the Tribunal is not justified in adding future prospects of 50%. A perusal of appointment order issued by the employer of the deceased makes it clear that he was appointed only for four years, however, with a renewal clause. Hence, we cannot say that the deceased was in a permanent job. Therefore, we feel that the respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to only 40% enhancement towards future prospects, instead of 50% addition made by the Tribunal. 10. As per the salary certificate Ex.P33 produced by the respondents, the deceased was earning a salary of 1800 US Dollars on the date of death. The Apex Court in a judgment dated 02.07.2013 made in C.A.Nos.4945 and 4946 of 2013, referred to above, held as follows: In the present case, admittedly the claimants filed a petition in April, 1990 (affidavit sworn on 24.03.1990) and claimed compensation in INR i.e., Rs.57,25,000/-. Such compensation was not claimed in U.S.Dollars. For the said reasons and in view of the decision of this Court in Forasol (Supra) as followed in Renusagar Power Company Limited (supra), we hold that the date of filing the claim petition (April, 1990) is the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which foreign currency amount has to be converted into currency of the country (INR). The Tribunal and the High Court have rightly relied on Ext.-A7, to fix the rate of exchange as Rs.17.30 (as was prevailing in April, 1990). 11. Therefore, we hold the date of claim petition shall be the relevant date for the purpose of applying the foreign exchange conversion rate. In the certified copy of the decree produced before this Court, the date of filing of claim petition was mentioned as 18.09.2009. However, a perusal of original claim petition makes it clear that the claim petition was filed on 27.11.2008 as it bears Court seal dated 27.11.2008 and the same was returned on 11.12.2008 for various defects and ultimately, it was taken on file on 18.09.2009. However, a perusal of original claim petition makes it clear that the claim petition was filed on 27.11.2008 as it bears Court seal dated 27.11.2008 and the same was returned on 11.12.2008 for various defects and ultimately, it was taken on file on 18.09.2009. Therefore, the relevant date for the purpose of applying the foreign exchange rate would be 27.11.2008. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 produced a print out from exchange rate.org mentioning the value of Indian Rupee for one US dollar on 27.11.2008 was Rs.49.16 and the same was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, as per the salary certificate produced by the respondents 1 to 5, the salary of the deceased at the time of accident converted into Indian Rupee was Rs.88,488/-, if an addition of 40% is made to that amount, the same would be Rs.1,23,883.20/-. We have already held that in case of deceased person employed in a foreign country, the deduction should be 50%. Hence, contribution to the dependants is fixed at Rs.61,941.60/- per month. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 37 years and the relevant multiplier as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER case is 15, therefore (Rs.61.941.60*12*15=Rs.1,11,49,488/-) is fixed towards loss of dependency. The loss of consortium for the first respondent/wife of the deceased is raised from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under the head loss of love and affection to respondents 2 to 4 is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000x3=Rs.1,20,000/-). The compensation awarded by Tribunal under other conventional heads are confirmed. 13. The award passed 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 1,62,00,000/- 1,11,49,488 Reduced 2. Loss of consortium 20,000 40,000 Enhanced 3. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 1,20,000 Enhanced 4. Funeral Expenses 10,000/- 10,000 Confirmed 5. Transport Expenses 8,000/- 8,000 Confirmed Total 1,63,38,000/- 1,13,27,488/- Reduced by Rs.50,10,512/- 14. In the result, (a) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,63,38,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.1,13,27,488/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Transport Expenses 8,000/- 8,000 Confirmed Total 1,63,38,000/- 1,13,27,488/- Reduced by Rs.50,10,512/- 14. In the result, (a) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,63,38,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.1,13,27,488/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant/Insurance Company 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) The share of the respective respondents are reduced proportionately; (c) On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their respective share along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. (d) The claimants 2 to 4 who were minors at the time of filing the claim petition are permitted to withdraw their respective shares by satisfying the Tribunal about the fact of their attaining majority; (e) The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.502 of 2009, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is Closed.