JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / New India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. The respondents 1 to 4 / claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one D.Ravindran, who died in the accident that took place on 16.12.2014. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on 16.12.2014 at about 03.30 a.m., while the deceased D.Ravindran was travelling in the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL 15 A 152 belonging to 5th respondent from Kerala to Bangalore on the Krishnagiri to Hosur NH, near Samalpallam opposite to Church at Shoolagiri, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 47 Q 1129, belonging to 6th respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the bus in which the said D.Ravindran was travelling and caused the accident. In the accident, the said D.Ravindran died. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents 5 to 7 and appellant. 4. The respondents 5 & 6, being the owner of the bus and lorry respectively remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited, being the insurer of the bus belonging to 5th respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 4. 5. The appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited, being the insurer of the bus belonging to 5th respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 4. According to appellant, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus very slowly and cautiously from Shoolagiri to Hosur on the Krishnagiri – Hosur NH Road, the driver of the lorry came from Krishnagiri to Hosur NH road towards Hosur without any signal lights and suddenly tuned the vehicle on the right side of the road at high speed and due to the said impact, the driver of the bus touched the right back side of the lorry and caused the accident. The accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and there is no fault on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the respondents 6 & 7 are only liable to pay the compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. Further, electronic speed limitation device is fixed on the bus and there is no question of high speed driving by the driver of the bus. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. Had the driver of the lorry been cautious enough while driving, the accident would not have occurred. The driver of the lorry gave a false complaint against the driver of the bus to escape from the liability. The lorry was not having valid fitness certificate and permit at the time of accident. The 5th respondent – owner of the bus has not furnished the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured, name of driver and particulars of driving license to the appellant. The concerned Police Station has to forward all the relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but the Shoolagiri Police failed to forward the documents to the appellant. At the time of accident, both the driver of the bus and lorry were not possessing valid driving license. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. At the time of accident, both the driver of the bus and lorry were not possessing valid driving license. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant. 6. The 7th respondent-TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the lorry belonging to 6th respondent filed separate counter statement and submitted that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The accident would not have occurred had the driver of the bus was vigilant and care while driving the bus. It is not the case of joint tort-feasor as alleged in the claim petition. The respondents 6 & 7 are unnecessary parties to this case and hence, no liability can be fixed on the respondents 6 & 7. The 6th respondent has already sold the lorry and there is no contractual relationship in force between the respondents 6 & 7. Hence, the 7th respondent is not liable to indemnify the 6th respondent. The lorry belonging to 6th respondent was not having valid fitness certificate and permit to carry aluminium load on the date of accident. The respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to claim compensation only from the 5th respondent and appellant, being the owner and insurer of the bus. The 7th respondent denied the age, avocation, income, quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 7th respondent. 7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, respondents 3 & 4 were examined as P.W.2 & P.W.3, one Saraswathi, who was working as Assistant Manager – HR at SEP India Private Limited, 31B, SIPCOT, PHASE-II, Hosur – 635 109 was examined as P.W.4 and 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25. The appellant and 7th respondent examined three witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 8. The appellant and 7th respondent examined three witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 8. 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 5th respondent and directed the appellant, being the insurer of the bus to pay a sum of Rs.75,60,450/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. 9. To set aside the said award dated 11.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2016, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 10. Though the appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited has raised grounds with regard to negligence, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his arguments only with regard to monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal without any basis, erroneously fixed a sum of Rs.51,080/- as monthly income of the deceased and granted excessive amount as compensation and prayed for reducing the amount granted by the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as General Manager in SEP India Private Limited, SIPCOT PHASE-II, Hosur – 635 109 and was earning a sum of Rs.54,800/- per month. The respondents 1 to 4 proved the avocation and income of the deceased by examining P.W.4 and marking Exs.P17 & P23 to 25. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P17 / salary certificate of the deceased has fixed the sum of Rs.51,080/- as monthly income of the deceased and the same is not excessive. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Though notice has been served on the 5th respondent and its name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 5th respondent, either in person or through counsel. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent-TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited submitted that no relief is sought for against the 7th respondent and the 7th respondent is only a formal party in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal as against them. 14. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent-TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited submitted that no relief is sought for against the 7th respondent and the 7th respondent is only a formal party in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal as against them. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 as well as learned counsel appearing for 7th respondent and perused the entire materials on record. 15. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased was working as General Manager in SEP India Private Limited, SIPCOT PHASE-II, Hosur – 635 109 and was earning a sum of Rs.54,800/- per month at the time of accident. To prove their case, the respondents 1 to 4 examined one Saraswathi as P.W.4, who was working as Assistant Manager – HR at SEP India Private Limited, SIPCOT PHASE-II, Hosur – 635 109 and marked Exs.P17 & P23 to 25 to that effect. A perusal of Ex.P25 / salary certificate of the deceased D.Ravindran, reveals that Ex.P25 was issued on 30.12.2014 by SEP India Private Limited, 31B, SIPCOT, PHASE-II, Hosur – 635 109, mentioning gross salary of the deceased as Rs.57,800/- and after deducting Rs.3,000/- towards P.F., the net salary as Rs.54,800/- per month. A perusal of Ex.P17 / salary certificate of the deceased D.Ravindran for the month of November 2014 reveals that the deceased was receiving a sum of Rs.55,440/- as gross salary and after deducting Rs.3,000/- towards PF and Rs.1,360/- towards TDS, the net salary of the deceased comes to Rs.51,080/- per month. A perusal of Ex.P17, shows that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards conveyance. The respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to the said amount granted towards conveyance. A sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,360/- per month paid by the deceased towards PF and TDS respectively are for the benefit of the deceased as well as for his family members. In view of the same, after deducing a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards conveyance (Rs.55,440/- - Rs.8,000/-), a sum of Rs.47,440/- is fixed as monthly income of the deceased. As per Ex.P13/postmortem certificate, the deceased was aged 46 years at the time of accident. In view of the same, after deducing a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards conveyance (Rs.55,440/- - Rs.8,000/-), a sum of Rs.47,440/- is fixed as monthly income of the deceased. As per Ex.P13/postmortem certificate, the deceased was aged 46 years at the time of accident. Following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another] and 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier 13' and granted 25% enhancement towards future prospects. 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 2015- 2016 is as follows :- Monthly salary of the deceased Rs.47,440.00 ADD: 25% enhancement towardsfuture prospects Rs.11,860.00 Rs.59,300.00 Annual income (Rs.59,300 x 12) Rs.7,11,600/- Income Tax Slab for Assessment Year 2015-2016: Upto Rs.2,50,000/- Nil Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (10%) [ Rs.2,50,000/- x 10%] Rs.25,000.00 Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- (20%) [Rs.7,11,600/- - Rs.5,00,000/- = Rs.2,11,600/-] [Rs.2,11,600/- x 20%] Rs.42,320.00 Rs.67,320.00 Annual income of the deceased after deducting income tax (Rs.7,11,600/- – Rs.67,320/-) Rs.6,44,280/- 15(i). There are four dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.62,81,730/- (Rs.6,44,280/- x 13 x 3/4). A sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium to 1st respondent is reduced to Rs.40,000/- as the same is excessive. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards parental consortium to 2nd respondent and filial consortium to respondents 3 & 4. The 2nd respondent, minor son of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium and the respondents 3 & 4, being the parents of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and hence, the same are hereby confirmed. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 59,76,360/- 2. Loss of future prospects 14,94,090/- 62,81,730/- Reduced 3. Loss of consortium to 1st respondent 50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced 4. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 59,76,360/- 2. Loss of future prospects 14,94,090/- 62,81,730/- Reduced 3. Loss of consortium to 1st respondent 50,000/- 40,000/- Reduced 4. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 6. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 7. Parental consortium to 2nd respondent - 40,000/- Granted 8. Filial consortium to respondents 3 & 4 - 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) Granted Total Rs.75,60,450/- Rs.64,81,730/- Reduced by Rs.10,78,720/- (Rs.75,60,450/-- Rs.64,81,730/-) 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.75,60,450/- is hereby reduced to Rs.64,81,730/-. The appellant-New India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, 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.82 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 3 & 4 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 share of the minor 2nd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor 2nd respondent attains majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the Mother of the minor 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare the minor 2nd respondent. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2016, if the entire award amount has been already deposited by them. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.