JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.132 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.132 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The appellant herein is the third respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants and the respondents 4 and 5 herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the original claim petition. 2. Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.132 of 2017, is as follows :- On 02.07.2015, at about 08.30 pm., when the deceased- Arumuganainar was driving his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN-74- J-2979 from Rajakkamangalam – Keelachattuvan Thoppu, near Pillaiyar vilai Sudalaimadaswamy Koil, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-74- N-1048 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle. The deceased was working as a Guard in the Pommi Pidukappu Sangam, Ethanmozhi and was earning Rs.10,247/- per month. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.22,80,000/- as compensation. 3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent,in M.C.O.P.No.132 of 2017, is as follows:- The first respondent drove the bus in a slow manner, keeping the left side. It was the deceased, who rode the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner along the wrong side of the road and he invited the accident. The first respondent is only a servant of the second and third respondents and the respondents 2 and 3 are vicariously liable to pay compensation. 4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.132 of 2017, adopted by the second respondent is as follows:- The nature of injuries, details of damages are all denied. There is no negligent on the part of the first respondent. Nature and manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The first respondent drove the vehicle with due care and caution, observing the traffic rule. It was the motorcyclist, who came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and he lost his control and fell down on the road. Nature and manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The first respondent drove the vehicle with due care and caution, observing the traffic rule. It was the motorcyclist, who came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and he lost his control and fell down on the road. The motorcyclist was not wearing helmet and prayed the petition to be dismissed. 5. On the side of the petitioners, 3 witnesses were examined and 14 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. One document was marked as Ex.X1. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs. 14,02,084/- as compensation. 6. Against the award, the appellant approached this Court by way of this appeal, on the following grounds :- The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the entire negligent on the bus driver. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligent on the deceased. Fixing the monthly income as Rs.10,247/-, on the basis of Ex.P8, is excessive. The Tribunal added 25% towards future prospects and applied multiplier 13', which are all excessive. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which are all very high. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to fix atleast contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The deceased was not wearing helmet. FIR was registered only against the deceased. The Tribunal is wrong in fixing 25% as future prospects. 8. On the side of the respondents 1 to 3 /claimants, it is stated that the complaint filed by one Kumaresan was not taken into account by the police and in the FIR, the name of the deceased was wrongly mentioned as 'accused'. The first claimant filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and the copy of the same was marked as Ex.P10. The complaint filed by the third claimant, before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, was marked as Ex.P11. Without considering Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, a false FIR (Ex.P5) was registered by the police. It was the duty of the heavy vehicle to be more cautious. 9. The complaint filed by the third claimant, before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, was marked as Ex.P11. Without considering Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, a false FIR (Ex.P5) was registered by the police. It was the duty of the heavy vehicle to be more cautious. 9. On the side of the respondents, a judgment of this Court reported in 2008-2-TNMAC-217 (Rani & others V. T.N.S.T.C.Ltd., Vellore), is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “The driver of bus, who was on wheels in a heavy vehicle owed a duty of care to other road users. Materials on record establish that the bus driver failed to take reasonable care in respect of other road users. The contradiction in evidence of driver / R.W.1and averments in counter would expose falsity in defence verisionn. However, the contradiction in evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A1 not material variations affecting credibility of claimants'case. The discrepancy only due to manner of narration of accident, which is not fatal to the claimant's case. The accident was due to the rash and neglight driving of the bus driver and the claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of M.V.Act.“ 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the citation is not applicable to the present case, viz.,to a rider of a two wheeler. In Ex.P4- rough sketch, it was mentioned that the accident took place in the middle of the road. The fault is only on the rider of the two wheeler. There is no necessity for the two wheeler to be on the middle of the road. 11. It is seen that FIR was against the rider of the two wheeler (deceased). But, on 07.07.2015, a complaint was filed by the third claimant before the Superintendent of Police and a copy of the same was marked as Ex.P11. It is stated that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Driving licence of the deceased was not marked as a document. FIR was against the deceased. But, considering the fact that the heavy vehicle driver ought to be more cautious and careful in riding the vehicle, it is decided that both the bus driver and the rider of the two wheeler are responsible for the accident and 50% contributory negligence is fixed on the deceased. 12. FIR was against the deceased. But, considering the fact that the heavy vehicle driver ought to be more cautious and careful in riding the vehicle, it is decided that both the bus driver and the rider of the two wheeler are responsible for the accident and 50% contributory negligence is fixed on the deceased. 12. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the income of the deceased is wrongly fixed by the Tribunal. 13. It is seen that no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. Ex.X1 was the salary register marked through witness Ex.P3. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and on the basis of Ex.P8 and Ex.X1, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,247/-, which is reasonable. 14. The age of the deceased at the time of accident is 47 years. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal added 25% towards future prospects and fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,809/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.8,539/-. After applying multiplier 15', the loss of income is calculated as Rs.13,32,084/-,which is reasonable. 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per the dictium of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards conventional charges. The award is fixed at Rs.14,02,081/-(Rs.13,32,084/- +Rs.70,000/- = Rs.14,02,084/-). After deducting 50% towards contributory negligence, the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,01,042/- as compensation. 16. This Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. The compensation is reduced from Rs,14,02,084/- to Rs.7,01,042/-. (i) The first claimant is entitled to Rs.5,01,042/- and the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each. (ii) The appellant - Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.7,01,042/-. (if not already deposited) together with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (if not already deposited) together with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made by the Transport Corporation, the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants are permitted to withdraw their share amount as apportioned by this Court with interest and costs, on filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by them. Excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any.