JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one N.Palani, who died in the accident that took place on 17.07.2014. 3. According to the respondents, on 17.07.2014 at around 16.15 hours, while the deceased N.Palani was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 73 Z 2436 along the Banavaram to Nemili Bye Pass road from Minnal to Salai, near Minnal Bungalow gate junction, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 2290, who was driving the bus from the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly turned to the right side without giving any signal endangering public safety, dashed on the motorcycle driven by the said N.Palani by the front bumper of the bus and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the said N.Palani was thrown out of the motorcycle and died on the way to Hospital. Hence, the respondents filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant. 4. The appellant filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents. According to appellant, on the date of accident, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a moderate speed on the left side Arakkonam to Velithakkipuram road, near Bungalow gate curve, he saw the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 73 Z 2436 coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner by crossing the centre median line. On seeing this, the driver of the bus slowed down the bus and stopped the bus on the left side mud portion of the road. On seeing this, the driver of the bus slowed down the bus and stopped the bus on the left side mud portion of the road. Inspite of the same, the rider of the motorcycle who was riding the motorcycle at a high speed, on seeing the bus, could not control the motorcycle and dashed on the centre portion of the front bumper of the bus, invited the accident and died on the spot. Hence, the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. The respondents have not impleaded the insurer of the motorcycle driven by the deceased as they are necessary party in the claim petition. The respondents have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Rajamani, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 6. 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 appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.25,43,000/- as compensation to the respondents. 7. To set aside the said award dated 13.03.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eyewitness to the accident. The Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the bus merely relying on the F.I.R. It is well settled that negligence cannot be fixed relying on the F.I.R. or judgment of the Criminal Court. The respondents did not file any document to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the bus merely relying on the F.I.R. It is well settled that negligence cannot be fixed relying on the F.I.R. or judgment of the Criminal Court. The respondents did not file any document to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income, a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is excessive. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is excessive. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Ex.P1 / FIR, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant – Transport Corporation. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.22,500/- per month. But, the Tribunal has fixed a meagre sum of Rs.12,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record. 11. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the respondents that while the deceased N.Palani was riding the motorcycle bearing along the Banavaram to Nemili Bye Pass road, near Minnal Bungalow gate junction, the driver of the bus belonging to appellant drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the motorcycle driven by the deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the said N.Palani was thrown out of the motorcycle and died on the way to Hospital. To substantiate their contention, the respondents examined one Rajamani, eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus as Ex.P1. In the accident, the said N.Palani was thrown out of the motorcycle and died on the way to Hospital. To substantiate their contention, the respondents examined one Rajamani, eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus as Ex.P1. P.W.2 deposed that at the time of accident, he was standing before the Minnal bungalow gate and he saw that the driver of the bus was negligent and the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that while the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a moderate speed on the left side of the road, on seeing the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner by crossing the centre median line, he stopped the bus on the left side mud portion of the road. Inspite of the same, the rider of the motorcycle could not control the motorcycle, dashed on the bus, invited the accident and died on the spot. To prove their case, except filing counter, the appellant did not examine the driver of the Bus or any other eye-witness to substantiate their contention. Further, the appellant or the driver of the bus has not filed any objection to the F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus and has not lodged any complaint against the deceased. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, & contents of Ex.P1/F.I.R. and failure on the part of the appellant for not filing any objection to the F.I.R. and not filing any complaint against the deceased, held that accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 12. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents claimed that deceased was a Mason and was earning a sum of Rs.22,500/- per month. To prove the said contention, the respondents have marked the copy of membership card of the deceased as Ex.P6. Except marking Ex.P6, the respondents did not file any documentary proof like salary certificate or pay slip to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. To prove the said contention, the respondents have marked the copy of membership card of the deceased as Ex.P6. Except marking Ex.P6, the respondents did not file any documentary proof like salary certificate or pay slip to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income, the Tribunal considering the year of accident, fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased stating that even if Rs.600/- was paid to the deceased per day for 20 days, he would have earned a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2014. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- is excessive. Considering the date of accident and nature of work done by the deceased, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is fixed as monthly income of the deceased. As per Ex.P2 / postmortem certificate, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident. As per 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], the Tribunal has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier 15'. There are six dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, by fixing a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, applying multiplier 15' and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.18,90,000/- {Rs.14,000/- [(Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/- (40% of Rs.10,000/-)] x 12 x 15 x 3/4}. 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: S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1. Loss of dependency 22,68,000/- 18,90,000/- Reduced 2. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 3. Loss of consortium to 1st respondent 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 4. Loss of love and affection to respondents 2 to 6 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Confirmed 5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 6. Loss of dependency 22,68,000/- 18,90,000/- Reduced 2. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 3. Loss of consortium to 1st respondent 40,000/- 40,000/- Confirmed 4. Loss of love and affection to respondents 2 to 6 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Confirmed 5. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 6. Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed Total Rs.25,43,000/- Rs.21,65,000/- Reduced by Rs.3,78,000/- 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.25,43,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.21,65,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation 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 twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 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 respondents 4 to 6 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor respondents 4 to 6 attain majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the Mother of the minor respondents 4 to 6 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare the minor respondents 4 to 6. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.6825 of 2014, if the entire award amount has been already deposited by them. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.