JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased and for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 04.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai. They filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one K. Vettriselvan, who died in the accident that took place on 27.02.2018. 3. According to appellants, on 27.02.2018 at about 23.00 hours while the deceased K. Vettriselvan was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-11-L-1750 from North to South direction at Tambaram Maduravoil By Pass near Thiruneer Malai, Jain Apartments, the driver of the container lorry bearing Registration No. TN-04-AH-7530, who was proceeding ahead of the motorcycle driven by the said K. Vettriselvan, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brake and stopped the lorry without any indication. At that time, the said K. Vettriselvan, who was riding the motorcycle behind the lorry, due to unavoidable circumstances dashed against the lorry, sustained head injuries and died. Hence, the appellants filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the lorry respectively. 4. The 1st respondent, owner of the container lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of the container lorry filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellants in the claim petition. According to 2nd respondent, the driver of the container lorry was driving the vehicle cautiously from North to South direction at Tambaram Maduravoil Bypass near Thiruneer Malai, Jain Apartments. The 2nd respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellants in the claim petition. According to 2nd respondent, the driver of the container lorry was driving the vehicle cautiously from North to South direction at Tambaram Maduravoil Bypass near Thiruneer Malai, Jain Apartments. At that time, the deceased who was riding the motorcycle on the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit against the rear side of the lorry and invited the accident. Apart from FIR, rough sketch, Mahazar and 161 statement by the Police confirms that the deceased only caused the accident and the deceased alone was responsible for the accident. Though PW-2/eyewitness was examined on the side of the appellants, the said evidence is not acceptable. PW-2 admitted that at the time of accident several vehicles were coming behind the lorry but the deceased only dashed against the lorry. Had the driver of the lorry applied sudden brake, other vehicles also dashed against the lorry. Hence, it is clear that the driver of the lorry did not apply sudden brake. PW-2 is not the person who has given any statement to the Police and his name is not found in any of the criminal records. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellants are entitled to only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant examined herself as PW-1, one P. Mathiyazhagan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2, one V. Ranganathan, employer of the deceased was examined as PW-3 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. The 2nd respondent examined one M. Sampath, Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic and Investigation Wing, Chinthadripet as RW-1 and marked five documents as Exs.R1 to R5. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that both the driver of the container lorry as well as the deceased are equally responsible for the accident and fixed negligence on the part of both the deceased as well as the driver of the container lorry in the ratio 50:50, awarded a sum of Rs. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that both the driver of the container lorry as well as the deceased are equally responsible for the accident and fixed negligence on the part of both the deceased as well as the driver of the container lorry in the ratio 50:50, awarded a sum of Rs. 35,15,000/- as compensation and directed the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 17,57,500/- being 50% of the award amount as compensation to the appellants. 8. Challenging the portion of the award fixing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 04.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, the appellants have come out with the present appeal. 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised various grounds challenging 50% contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal on the part of the deceased, at the time of arguments, he submitted that the appellants are not pressing the arguments challenging 50% negligence fixed on the deceased and represented that he is restricting his arguments only with regard to quantum of compensation. He also made an endorsement to that effect. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technology Ltd. M.T.H. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai and was earning a sum of Rs. 77,092/- per month. The appellants examined PW-3/employer of the deceased and filed Ex.P8/Company ID card of the deceased, Ex.P15/Letter of Authority-HCL Technologies Ltd. & Ex.P16/copy of appointment order along with P.F. details and salary slips of the deceased and proved the avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the appellants, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- as against the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 77,092/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,26,828/- per month taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3/employer of the deceased and Ex.P16/salary slip of the deceased. The Tribunal failed to grant any enhancement towards future prospects. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is meagre. 77,092/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,26,828/- per month taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3/employer of the deceased and Ex.P16/salary slip of the deceased. The Tribunal failed to grant any enhancement towards future prospects. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is meagre. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant, loss of love and affection to appellants 2 & 3 and funeral expenses are meagre. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-3 and Exs.P15 & P16, has fixed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and the same is not meagre. The appellants are not entitled to any enhancement towards future prospects as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency is excessive. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are not meagre. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not meagre. The appellants have not made out any case for enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record. 13. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was working as Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technology Ltd. M.T.H. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai and was earning a sum of Rs. 77,092/- per month. To prove the said contention, the appellants examined one V. Ranganathan, employer of the deceased as PW-3 and marked Ex.P8/Company ID card of the deceased, Ex.P15/Letter of Authority-HCL Technologies Ltd. & Ex.P16/copy of appointment order along with P.F. details and salary slips of the deceased. From Exs.P15 & P16, it is seen that there are some contradictions in the monthly salary received by the deceased. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not explained clearly as to the monthly salary of the deceased. From Exs.P15 & P16, it is not clear about the monthly salary received by the deceased. From Exs.P15 & P16, it is seen that there are some contradictions in the monthly salary received by the deceased. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not explained clearly as to the monthly salary of the deceased. From Exs.P15 & P16, it is not clear about the monthly salary received by the deceased. In view of the contradictions, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The appellants in the claim petition have claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 77,092/- per month. From the Bank statement given by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court today, for the month of November 2017 a sum of Rs. 51,794.54/- was credited, for the month of December 2017 a sum of Rs. 1,22,895.66/- was credited and for the month of January 2018 a sum of Rs. 80,726.20/- was credited to the Bank account of the deceased. Considering Exs.P15, P16 and the Bank statement now filed before this Court, it would be just and proper to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 77,000/- per month. 13. (i) As per Ex.P6/10th and 12th Mark sheets of the deceased, he was aged 33 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has not granted any enhancement towards future prospects. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) the appellants are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier ‘16’. The Tribunal failed to deduct any amount towards Income Tax. Thus, the calculation for arriving annual income of the deceased after deducting income tax for the assessment year 2018-2019 is as follows: Monthly salary of the deceased Rs. 77,000.00 ADD: 40% enhancement towards future prospects Rs. 30,800.00 Rs. 1,07,800/- Annual income (Rs. 1,07,800/- x 12) Rs. 12,93,600/- Income Tax Slab for Assessment Year 2018-2019: Upto Rs. 2,50,000/- Nil Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- (5%) [Rs. 2,50,000/- x 5%] Rs. 12,500.00 Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- (20%) [Rs. 5,00,000/- x 20%] Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 10,00,000/- and above (30%) [Rs. 12,93,600/- - Rs. 10,00,000/- = Rs. 2,93,600/-] [Rs. 2,93,600/- x 30%] Rs. 1,07,800/- x 12) Rs. 12,93,600/- Income Tax Slab for Assessment Year 2018-2019: Upto Rs. 2,50,000/- Nil Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- (5%) [Rs. 2,50,000/- x 5%] Rs. 12,500.00 Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- (20%) [Rs. 5,00,000/- x 20%] Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 10,00,000/- and above (30%) [Rs. 12,93,600/- - Rs. 10,00,000/- = Rs. 2,93,600/-] [Rs. 2,93,600/- x 30%] Rs. 88,080.00 Rs. 2,00,580.00 Annual income of the deceased after deducting income tax [Rs. 12,93,600/- - Rs. 2,00,580/-] Rs. 10,93,020/- 13. (ii) There are three dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, by fixing Rs. 77,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects and after deducting income tax, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs. 1,16,58,880/- (Rs. 10,93,020/- x 16 x 2/3). The Tribunal after arriving compensation for loss of dependency, reduced a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- stating that the said amount was received by the appellants towards Term Life Insurance paid by the deceased. The said deduction is erroneous. The premium was paid by the deceased for life insurance scheme and the appellants are entitled to the said amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The appellants 2 & 3, who are the parents of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of estate. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant and funeral expenses are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. 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 34,00,000/- (after deducting Rs. 30,00,000/- towards term life insurance) 1,16,58,880/- Enhanced 2. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 3. Loss of consortium to 1st appellant 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 4. Loss of love and affection 60,000/- -- Set aside 5. Filial consortium to appellants 2 and 3 -- 80,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- each) Granted 6. Loss of dependency 34,00,000/- (after deducting Rs. 30,00,000/- towards term life insurance) 1,16,58,880/- Enhanced 2. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 3. Loss of consortium to 1st appellant 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 4. Loss of love and affection 60,000/- -- Set aside 5. Filial consortium to appellants 2 and 3 -- 80,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- each) Granted 6. Loss of estate -- 15,000/- Granted Total Rs. 35,15,000/- Rs. 1,18,08,880/- 50% of compensation Rs. 17,57,500/- Rs. 59,04,440/- Enhanced by Rs. 41,46,940/- (Rs. 59,04,440/- - Rs. 17,57,500/-) 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 17,57,500/- is hereby enhanced to Rs. 59,04,440/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent-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, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount now determined by this Court as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee as per the order of this Court dated 11.08.2021 made in C.M.P. No. 12564 of 2021 in C.M.A. No. 37033 of 2020. No costs.