JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu. The respondents 2 to 5 along with the deceased Sagunthala filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Venkatesan, who died in the accident that took place on 11.05.2009. 3. According to the respondents 2 to 5, on the date of accident, at about 6.45 p.m, when the deceased S.Venkatesan was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-AA-6525 along with his brother one Arumugam as a pillion rider, from Tiruporur to Saras, on ECR road, near Pooncheri Irular Kudiyiruppu opposite to Jayachitra Thottam, the driver of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-AK-4115, owned by the 1st respondent, drove the same from Pondichery to Chennai on the same road of ECR in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, and dashed against the Motorcycle driven by the deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the said S.Venkatesan sustained grievous injuries on the head and body, as a result, he died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Eicher Lorry and hence, the respondents 2 to 5 along with the deceased Sakunthala filed the said claim petition, claiming compensation against the 1st respondent and appellant-Insurance Company as owner and insurer of the Eicher Lorry respectively. 4. The 1st respondent, owner of the Eicher Lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant, insurer of the Eicher Lorry, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 2 to 5 in the claim petition. 4. The 1st respondent, owner of the Eicher Lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant, insurer of the Eicher Lorry, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 2 to 5 in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Motorcycle who drove the Motorcycle at high speed, hit against the Lorry and invited the accident. Hence, the appellant, insurer of the Eicher Lorry, is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 2 to 5 and the claim petition has to be dismissed as against the appellant. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondents 2 to 5 is exorbitant and excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and Arumugam, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. The appellant did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of respondents 2 to 5, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Eicher Lorry owned by the 1st respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 1st respondent to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.20,80,000/- as compensation to the respondents 2 to 5. 8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 07.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the respondents 2 to 5 did not file any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any documents, the Tribunal excessively fixed a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, contrary to the dictum and ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 54 [Andal and others Vs. Avinav Kannan and others] and erred in granting 50% enhancement towards future prospects of the deceased, contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 [National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others]. Avinav Kannan and others] and erred in granting 50% enhancement towards future prospects of the deceased, contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 [National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others]. As against the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (referred to above), the Tribunal exorbitantly awarded a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- under the head 'non-pecuniary loss' towards loss of love and affection, care and consortium. The Tribunal has excessively awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% percent as against 6%, following the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (7) SCC 161 [Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy Vs. the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.] and prayed for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 contended that at the time of accident, the deceased S.Venkatesan was aged 36 years, working as a Plumbing Contractor. He had 20 workers under him for his job in Chennai and various cities and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, without considering the nature of work done by the deceased S.Venkatesan. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and their name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the respondents 2 to 5 and perused the entire materials available on record. 13. It is the contention of the respondents 2 to 5 that the deceased S.Venkatesan was working as a Plumbing Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondents 2 to 5 did not file any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any materials with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2009. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident. In the absence of any materials with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2009. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], the respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to only 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The Tribunal has erroneously granted 50% enhancement towards future prospects. There are four dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, fixing Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, applying the multiplier 15' and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the amounts awarded towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.15,12,000/- {Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/- (40% of Rs.8,000/-)] x 12 x 15 x ¾}. The 2nd respondent is wife, the respondents 3 to 5 are minor children of the deceased. The Tribunal, in addition to granting compensation towards loss of dependency and funeral expenses, granted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.1,10,000/- each to the respondents 3 to 5 towards 'Non-pecuniary loss'. The respondents 2 to 5 are not entitled to the said amounts granted under the head of 'Non-pecuniary loss' and hence, the same are set aside. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) (referred to above), a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the 2nd respondent, wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium and Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the respondents 3 to 5 towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of estate and transport expenses. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses. The sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is meagre and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded 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 1. Loss of dependency 16,20,000/- 15,12,000/- Reduced 2. The sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is meagre and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded 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 1. Loss of dependency 16,20,000/- 15,12,000/- Reduced 2. Loss of consortium to 2nd respondent 1,20,000/- 40,000/- Reduced 3. Loss of love and affection to respondents  3 to 5 3,30,000/- 1,20,000/- Reduced 4. Transport charges - 10,000/- Granted 5. Funeral expenses 10,000/- 15,000/- Enhanced 6. Loss of estate - 15,000/- Granted Total 20,80,000/- 17,12,000/- Reduced by  Rs.3,68,000/- 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.20,80,000/- is modified to Rs.17,12,000/- 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 as well as the 1st respondent are jointly and severally directed to deposit the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, 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. No.281 of 2009. On such deposit, the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw her share of the award amount, now determined by this Court, along with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor respondents 3 to 5 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minors attain majority. The 2nd respondent, mother of the minor respondents 3 to 5 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 3 to 5. The appellant-Insurance Company  is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2009, if the entire amount has already been deposited by them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.