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.1425 of 2015, dated 20.04.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, dated 20.04.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petition. 2. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, is as follows: On 25.10.2014, at about 3.45 pm., while the deceased was nearing her house, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-1585 came in a rash and negligence manner, dashed against the deceased. The deceased sustained injury and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1425 of 2015, is as follows: The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The bus driver drove the bus in a careful and cautious manner. It was the deceased, who crossed the road with her sister, without observing the traffic and invited the accident. The driver of the bus applied sudden brake, even then the child hit the front portion of the bus. The accident has happened only due to the negligence of the child. The bus driver is not responsible for the accident. The claim is excessive and prayed the petition to be dismissed. 4. On the side of the claimants, 1 witness was examined and 11 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, 1 witness was examined and no document was marked. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- as compensation. 5. Against the order, the appellant / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- The Tribunal has erred in fixing the entire negligence on the bus driver. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the deceased, who failed to observe the traffic. The compensation awarded is excessive. Annual income of the deceased fixed as Rs.60,000/-, is excessive. Adopting multiplier 13' is also excessive. 6. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the deceased, who failed to observe the traffic. The compensation awarded is excessive. Annual income of the deceased fixed as Rs.60,000/-, is excessive. Adopting multiplier 13' is also excessive. 6. On the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation, it is stated that the deceased was a minor girl, aged about 13 years, she crossed the road suddenly, without observing the traffic. Fixing a notional income of Rs.60,000/- per annum is excessive. Only Rs.30,000/- per annum has to be fixed and the Tribunal has failed to deduct 50% of her own expenses. A judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2014-1-SCC-244 (Kishan Gopal & Anr vs Lala & Ors) is cited. 7. On the side of the respondents / claimants, it is stated that the sisters are also entitled for compensation. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018-2-TNMAC-452 (SC) (Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., V. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. ........... In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of Filial consortium.” 8. On the side of the respondents/ claimants, it is stated that the notional income has to be fixed above Rs.50,000/- per annum. The Tribunal fixed only a notional income. The Tribunal failed to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 9. Considering the age of the dependents of the deceased, multiplier 14' has to be applied, but, the Tribunal applied only multiplier 13', under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court suo-motu can enhance the compensation and prayed the compensation to be enhanced. 10. 9. Considering the age of the dependents of the deceased, multiplier 14' has to be applied, but, the Tribunal applied only multiplier 13', under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court suo-motu can enhance the compensation and prayed the compensation to be enhanced. 10. On the side of the respondents / claimants a judgment of this Court reported in 2008-1-TNMAC-177 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. M.Jayagandhi and others) is cited, wherein, this Court has made an observation that even without a cross objection, questioning the quantum, the Court can suo-motu enhance the compensation. The relevant paragraph read as follows:- “.... a Court would normally not permit a party to ask for enhancement unless an Appeal or Cross-Objections have been filed but there could be a very small category of cases in which the Court would make an exception, the reason being that the essence of doing justice requires that a Court will not refuse a relief only because of a technical or a procedural bar.” 11. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that multiplier has to be applied only on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependents. The respondents failed to file any cross objection or appeal and there is no question of enhancement of compensation. 12. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects in calculating the compensation. The Tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospects. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009-14-SCC-1 (R.K.Malik and Another V. Kiran Pal and others)is cited, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “Though there is no yardstick to measure loss of future prospects of a child, held, if children are good in studies and studying in reasonably good school, presumption should be that their future prospects would be good and bright.” 13. On the side of the respondents / claimants, it is further stated that there is no necessity to deduct any amount towards personal expenses. In the case of minor, no amount for personal expenses are to be deducted. An unreported Judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.No.1099 of 2015 (The Branch Manager, M/s. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V. Rahman Sheriff and others) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “.... In the case of minor, no amount for personal expenses are to be deducted. An unreported Judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.No.1099 of 2015 (The Branch Manager, M/s. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V. Rahman Sheriff and others) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “.... This Court considered the above judgment fixed the annual income of the minor deceased from Rs.45,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In case of minor being a victim, no deduction is made from annual income towards personal expenses.” 14. On the side of the respondents / claimants, it is stated that for a child a minimum wage of Rs.4,846/- per month has to be taken into consideration and after adding 40% towards future prospects, Rs.6784.40 per month has to be taken as loss of income and multiplier has to be applied. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020-SAR-Civil-530 (Kajal V. Jagdish Chand and others) is cited. 15. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that only Rs.30,000/- has to be taken as annual income of a child. An unreported judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.No.105 of 2018, dated 22.10.2018 is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “12. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased minor at Rs.30,000/- per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is excessive. On the other hand, he has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above fixing the notional income of the minor at Rs.30,000/-; per annum. In view of the same, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The Tribunal has applied correct multiplier 15' and awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-; towards loss of income, which is just and proper. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is reduced to a sum of Rs.40,000/-; from Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills is hereby confirmed. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral and transportation and loss of expectation of life and loss of estate and mental agony are excessive has considerable force. Further, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills is hereby confirmed. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral and transportation and loss of expectation of life and loss of estate and mental agony are excessive has considerable force. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609(SC) in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the claimants are only entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-; under the conventional heads.“ 16. The Tribunal has fixed the annual income as Rs.60,000/- per annum, even in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the respondent, reported in 2009-14-SCC-1, the annual income of the child, below 15 years was fixed only at Rs.15,000/-. This Court in C.M.A.No.1099 of 2015 has fixed the annual income of a minor at Rs.60,000/- per annum. The respondents' counsel has cited another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020-SARCivil- 530 (Kajal V. Jagdish Chand) and prayed that the amount including the future prospects to be fixed at Rs.6,784.40 per month and multiplier to be applied in the case cited above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.6,784.40 towards attender charges, as the minor child sustained 100% disability and was in need of the support of a skilled attendant for the entire life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the monthly income as Rs.4,846/- per month, for the attendant and after adding 40% for future prospects of the attendant, has fixed the income as Rs.6,781.40 for the charges to be paid to the attendant. This amount was not fixed as the monthly income of the minor child. The facts of the case cited above are different from the facts of the present case and hence, this Judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is decided that the annual income fixed by the Tribunal is correct. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. 18. This Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is decided that the annual income fixed by the Tribunal is correct. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. 18. This Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (i) The appellant - Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- (if not already deposited) together with 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. (ii) On such deposit being made by the appellant - Transport Corporation, the respondents 1 & 2 / major claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares with proportionate interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal, on filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by them. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants / respondent 3 and 4 herein in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in a Fixed Deposit scheme, till they attain majority. The first respondent, who is the father and guardian of the minor claimants, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minors. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any.