JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree dated 09.12.2020, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, on the file of the III additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur at Dharapuram.) Common Judgment: V.M. Velumani, J. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the common judgment and decree dated 09.12.2020, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, on the file of the III additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur at Dharapuram. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and common award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in their claim petitions. 4. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, on the file of the III additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur at Dharapuram. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1046 of 2015 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Anbarasu, who died in the accident that took place on 13.08.2015 and claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1062 of 2015 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one A.Shanthi, who died in the same accident. 5. According to the claimants, on the date of accident, at about 3.00 p.m, when the deceased S.Anbarasu was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-51-L-5774 along with the deceased A.Shanthi in pillion towards East on the Northern edge of Karur to Trichy road near Pariyur Over Bridge in a moderate speed, the 1st respondent/driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-AV-2661 owned by 2nd respondent who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner in front of the Motorcycle, applied sudden brake, without any sign or signal or indication and caused obstruction on the road. Due to the said impact, the rider of the motorcycle / S.Anbarasu dashed on the rear portion of the Lorry and thus, the accident occurred. In the accident, both S.Anbarasu and A.Shanthi were thrown out from the Motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries all over their bodies. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry. In the accident, both S.Anbarasu and A.Shanthi were thrown out from the Motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries all over their bodies. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry. Hence, the claimants in both the claim petitions filed the said claim petitions, claiming compensation against the respondents 1 to 3 as driver, owner and insurer of the Lorry respectively. 6. The respondents 1 and 2, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 7. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the Lorry, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimants in both the claim petitions. According to the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent drove the Lorry with utmost care and caution. The deceased S.Anbarasu only rode the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner behind the Lorry and hit on the back portion of the Lorry and invited the accident. For the negligent act of the rider of the Motorcycle, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The claimants have to prove that the insurance policy for the Lorry was in force at the time of accident and 1st respondent as well as the deceased rider of the Motorcycle possessed valid driving license to drive their respective vehicles at the time of accident. The claimants also have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased persons to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive and prayed for dismissal of both the claim petitions. 8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant in both the claim petitions examined himself as P.W.1, examined one Vaithiyanathan, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and one Rajkumar Amuthan, employer of the deceased S.Anbarasu as P.W.3 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company examined one Madhan, Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India as R.W.1 and marked the Indian Bank Statement of Account of S.Anbarasu as Ex.X1. 9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry owned by the 2nd respondent and directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,97,648/- and Rs.9,31,992/- as compensation to the claimants in both the claim petitions respectively. 10. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry owned by the 2nd respondent and directed the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,97,648/- and Rs.9,31,992/- as compensation to the claimants in both the claim petitions respectively. 10. Against the said common award dated 09.12.2020, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeals. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry, without considering the fact that the deceased S.Anbarasu who rode the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the back side of the Lorry which was going ahead. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased S.Anbarasu who was riding behind the Lorry did not maintain safe distance between the Lorry and his Motorcycle, violated Regulation 23 of Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 and caused the accident. The notional income of the deceased S.Anbarasu fixed at Rs.13,926/- per month and deceased A.Shanthi fixed at Rs.6,500/- per month and grant of 30% enhancement towards future prospects to the deceased S.Anbarasu are without any basis and excessive. The claimants are not dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased persons, instead of 1/3rd . The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the common award of the Tribunal. 11(a). The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, in support of his contention, relied on the judgment reported in 2018 ACJ 1466 [Nishan Singh and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others], wherein the relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows: “10.The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering issue No.1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answering the said issue No.1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the chargesheet filed by the appellants and observed thus: “20. Ltd., and others], wherein the relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows: “10.The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering issue No.1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answering the said issue No.1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the chargesheet filed by the appellants and observed thus: “20. In site plan paper No.6C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the road in question appears to be 14 feet and about 7 steps Kachcha Lekh appears at the both sides of the road. This fact is remarkable that the said accident is not of front accident but the accident occurred as a result of collision of the Maruti Car on the rear part of the truck in question by the driver of the car in question and the same fact is also mentioned in the evidence of the petitioners. PW-2 Manjeet Singh driver of the car in question as stated in his cross examination that he was driving the car behind the truck at the distance of about 1015 feet. Despite there being the breadth of the road 14 feet Pucca, the driver of the car in question kept the vehicle only at the distance of 1015 feet from the truck which doesn’t appear in accordance with traffic rules. He should have driven the vehicle maintaining the proper distance in order to escape from each circumstance but he has admitted in his cross examination as PW2 that, “he knows that he should maintain proper distance from the heavy vehicle”. Under such circumstance if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintain then the whole negligence shall be determined on the part of rear vehicle in regard to the occurrence of accident in question. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence. 21. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence. 21. By the facts mentioned in the petition and by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it doesn’t appear reliable that rash and negligent driving in the accident in question was on the part of the driver of the truck in question and for this purpose only by registering of F.I.R. of said accident and submitting of chargesheet against the driver of the truck in question, the driver of the truck in question cannot be held guilty for the said accident, whereas by the evidence of the petitioner on record this fact comes forward that the accident occurred as the driver of the car in question was not driving the car in question in accordance with traffic rules i.e. the accident occurred as the vehicle was not being driven maintaining proper distance from the truck and it appears clearly that the speed of the car would have been fast whereby the car in question collided with the rear part of the truck in question being uncontrolled and said accident took place. Under such circumstance there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of truck bearing No.U.P. 32 Z2397 regarding the accident in question but the same is determined on the part of Manjeet Singh driver of Maruti Car bearing No.U.P.02 D5292. 22. Under such circumstance there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of truck bearing No.U.P. 32 Z2397 regarding the accident in question but the same is determined on the part of Manjeet Singh driver of Maruti Car bearing No.U.P.02 D5292. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid interpretation it appears that the said accident didn’t occur on 28.11.2010 at about 6:45 p.m. at village Kunda KashipurJashpur Road under area of P.S. Kunda district Udham Singh Nagar by the driver of the truck bearing No. U.P.32 Z2397 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and by applying sudden break but it occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing No. U.P.02 D5292 in question by Manjeet Singh driver, wherein Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car sustained serious injuries and expired during her treatment on account of serious injuries.” The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the maruti car. The maruti car was driven by none other than PW2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and maruti car was only 10 15 feet. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus: “23. Distance from vehicles in front. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus: “23. Distance from vehicles in front. The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10–15 feet between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants.” 12.The learned counsel appearing for the claimants made submissions in support of the common award of the Tribunal and relied on the judgment reported in 2022 (1) TNMAC 152 [K.Anusha and others Vs. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.], wherein the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “4. On 10.02.2011, the Car in which the husband of the 1st Appellant (and the father of the Appellant Nos.2 & 3) was travelling, dashed against a Lorry that was going in front, when the Driver of the Lorry allegedly stopped it all of a sudden without any signal or indicator. The victim suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. ............................ 10. The primary grievance of the Appellants are two-fold namely, (i) that the finding of Contributory Negligence is wholly arbitrary and unjustified; and (ii) that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to take care of the Future Prospects, in the light of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC): 2017 (6) CTC 493 (SC): 2017 (16) SCC 680 . ............................ 12. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC): 2017 (6) CTC 493 (SC): 2017 (16) SCC 680 . ............................ 12. The view expressed by the High Court to the effect that if the Driver of the Car had been vigilant and driving the vehicle carefully following the Traffic Rules, the accident would not have happened, is presumptuous and not based on any evidence. There was nothing on record to indicate that the Driver of the Car was not driving at moderate speed nor that he did not follow Traffic Rules. On the contrary, the High Court holds that if the Lorry had not been parked on the highway, the accident would not have happened even if the Car was driven at a high speed.” As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in both the appeals contended that the Tribunal considering the permanent job of the deceased S.Anbarasu and age of the deceased at the time of accident, fixed monthly income at Rs.13,926/-, granted 30% enhancement towards future prospects and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. The deceased A.Shanthi was working as a Coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal, without considering the same, fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.6,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased. The claimants are parents and in-laws of the deceased and they are also dependents of the deceased. In any event, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company as well as the claimants in both the claim petitions and perused the entire materials available on record. 14. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the claimants in both the claim petitions that when the deceased S.Anbarasu was riding a Motorcycle along with the deceased A.Shanthi in pillion towards East on the Northern edge of Karur to Trichy road near Pariyur Over Bridge in a moderate speed, the 1st respondent/driver of the Lorry, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in front of the Motorcycle, applied sudden brake without any sign or signal or indication and caused obstruction on the road. Due to the said impact, S.Anbarasu dashed on the rear portion of the Lorry and thus the accident occurred. In the accident, both S.Anbarasu and A.Shanthi sustained fatal injuries all over their bodies. To prove the said contention, the claimants examined one Vaithiyanathan, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 - FIR, which was registered against the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry. Whereas it is the case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to negligent act of the deceased who was riding the Motorcycle without keeping sufficient distance between the Lorry which was going in front of him. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company did not examine the driver of the Lorry or any eye-witness to substantiate their case. P.W.2 is the person who gave the complaint based on which FIR – Ex.P1 was registered. In his evidence, he has deposed that he only admitted the victims in the Hospital. On the next day, he gave complaint and nothing favourable was elicited in the cross-examination by the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company. As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant, as rider of Motorcycle did not maintain safe distance when he was riding behind the Lorry is concerned, there is no material to show that rider of the Motorcycle did not maintain sufficient safe distance from the Lorry going in front of the Motorcycle. The driver of the Lorry was not examined and nothing elicited from P.W.2 with regard to distance between the Lorry and Motorcycle just before the accident. The 3rd respondent- Insurance Company failed to prove that accident occurred only as the rider of the Motorcycle did not maintain sufficient and safe distance as per the Regulation 23 of Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, the driver of the Maruti Car who was driving behind the Truck admitted that he did not leave sufficient distance between the Truck and Car driven by him. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, the driver of the Maruti Car who was driving behind the Truck admitted that he did not leave sufficient distance between the Truck and Car driven by him. In view of the failure on the part of the 3rd respondent to prove that rider of Motorcycle did not maintain safe distance between the Motorcycle and Lorry, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment relied on by the counsel for claimants is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W.2 and in the absence of contra evidence by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, accepted Ex.P1 – FIR and Ex.P11 - Charge Sheet and held that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry. The reason given by the Tribunal for such a finding is proper and valid. 15. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.1046 of 2015 is concerned, the claimants contended that the deceased S.Anbarasu was working as a Supervisor in a Private Company viz., Thirumurugan Associates, Coimbatore and was earning not less than a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. They have examined P.W.3 – partner of the said firm where the deceased S.Anbarasu was working and marked Exs.P19 to P21 – letters for fund transfer to salary account, to prove his avocation and income. From the above said evidences, the Tribunal found that salary of the deceased was deposited in the bank. The 3rd respondent examined R.W.1 – Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India, Coimbatore Main Branch. From the evidence of R.W.1, it is seen that every month a sum of Rs.13,926/- was credited to the account of the deceased. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and R.W.1, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased S.Anbarasu at Rs.13,926/-. The same is in order. The deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The same is in order. The deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], rightly granted 30% enhancement towards future prospects considering the fact that the deceased was doing a permanent job and applying multiplier 14', after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. The same is in order. The deceased was married. There are two dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive, warranting interference by this Court. 16. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.1062 of 2015 is concerned, in the claim petition, even though the claimants have stated that the deceased A.Shanthi was working as Coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-, they failed to prove the same by letting in evidence to substantiate their stand. It has been settled that house wife is also entitled for fixing notional income for granting compensation due to the death in an accident. The accident is of the year 2015. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. The claimants are in-laws and mother of the deceased. Had the deceased been alive, from and out of the income, she would have take care of the needs of her mother and in-laws and maintained them. The Tribunal considering the above, rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and granted compensation. The total compensation granted by the Tribunal is not excessive, warranting interference by this Court. 17. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.20,97,648/- and Rs.9,31,992/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit are confirmed. The total compensation granted by the Tribunal is not excessive, warranting interference by this Court. 17. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.20,97,648/- and Rs.9,31,992/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit are confirmed. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amounts, along with interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this common judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 and 1062 of 2015. On such deposit, the claimants in both the appeals are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amounts 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. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.