JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur.) This Cross objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22(1) of C.P.C., against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur.) Common Judgment: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur. The appellant herein is the Transport Corporation and the respondents herein are the claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petition. 2. Cross Objection has been filed to enhance the the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Court, Karur. The appellants herein are the claimants and the respondent herein is the Transport Corporation in the original M.C.O.P. Petition. 3. Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.290 of 2018, is as follows: On 11.03.2018, at about 11.15 pm., while the deceased -Kalimuthu was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-47- AV-0550 along the Karur – Erode main road, near Athur sub road, in front of Deepam Store, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-63-N-1723 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler. He was taken to Karur Apollo hospital after getting first aid, he was shifted to Kovial K.M.C. Hospital, where, he died on 14.03.2018. He was aged about 23 years and was working as a car driver and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as salary, in addition to the batta. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No. 290 of 2018, is as follows: It was the rider of the two wheeler, who suddenly turned the vehicle to the right side. On seeing the same, the bus driver took the bus to the mud portion of the road, but, the rider of the two wheeler lost his balance and dashed against the front bumper portion of the bus and he invited the accident. On seeing the same, the bus driver took the bus to the mud portion of the road, but, the rider of the two wheeler lost his balance and dashed against the front bumper portion of the bus and he invited the accident. The Insurer of the two wheeler is a necessary party to the case. The age, avocation and income of the deceased are all denied. The claim is exorbitant. 5. On the side of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 9 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.14,47,869/- as compensation. 6. Against the order, the respondent / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the entire liability on the appellant. It was the friend of the deceased, who drove the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. Only on the ground that there was no independent evidence on the side of Corporation, the Tribunal has awarded a huge sum as compensation. The claimants have failed to establish the monthly salary, but, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly salary as Rs.11,000/-, which is excessive. 7. Brief substance of the cross objection filed by the claimants is as follows:- 7.1. The Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal only on the ground that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence, but the Transport Corporation has failed to examine the concerned police officer, who investigated the criminal case. The Transport Corporation has examined only one witness as R.W.1, who was a worker of the Transport Corporation and his evidence is not reliable. 7.2. The deceased was working as a driver. He was having valid driving licence. The driving licence of the deceased was marked as Ex.P7. But, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income only as Rs.11,000/-, which is very meagre. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. P.W.2 - employer of the deceased was examined and he has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.26,000/- per month and prayed the compensation is to be enhanced. 7.3. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reported in 2017- ACJ-2700 (National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi and others), the Tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospects. 7.3. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reported in 2017- ACJ-2700 (National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi and others), the Tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospects. The compensation for the other heads also to be enhanced. 8. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, it is stated that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is excessive. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. No salary certificate or Bank account was marked on the side of the claimants. The award is excessive. 9. On the side of the claimants, it is stated that the appellant-Corporation has failed to examine any independent witness. R.W.1 is the employee of the appellant and his evidence is not reliable. No document was filed on the side of the Transport Corporation, to prove the case. 10. A perusal of the records reveals that the claimants examined P.W.3 as eyewitness. Ex.P1 was the F.I.R. Ex.P4 was the copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P3 was the motor vehicle inspection report. From the evidence of P.W.3 and from Ex.P1 and Ex.P4, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the bus driver. Except the oral evidence of R.W.1, there is no independent evidence or document on the side of the appellant – Transport Corporation. R.W.1 is the employee of the appellant-Corporation. In the above circumstances, it is decided that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 11. On the side of the appellant-Corporation, it is stated that the income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. On the side of the cross objector, it is stated that the income fixed by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. It is stated that the deceased was a car driver. The driving licence of the deceased was marked as Ex.P7. P.W.2 has deposed that the deceased worked as a driver and copy of the R.C book of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P9. P.W.2 has deposed that he gave Rs.20,000/- as salary for the driver and he paid batta for the driver. Considering the date of accident and considering the fact that the deceased was the driver and on considering the evidence of P.W.2, it is decided that the monthly salary fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. 12. P.W.2 has deposed that he gave Rs.20,000/- as salary for the driver and he paid batta for the driver. Considering the date of accident and considering the fact that the deceased was the driver and on considering the evidence of P.W.2, it is decided that the monthly salary fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. 12. On the side of the cross objectors - claimants, it is stated that the Tribunal has failed to add future prospects to the income of the deceased. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled for future prospects. Hence, after adding 40% future prospects, the monthly income is fixed as Rs.15,400/-. The deceased died as a Bachelor and after deducting 50% towards his own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.7,700/- to his family. The age of the deceased was 23 years and hence, multiplier 18' is applicable. Hence, the loss of income is calculated as Rs.16,63,200/-. 13. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Nanu Ram and others), both the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection and the same is reduced to Rs.80,000/-. The claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.29,869/- towards medical expenses. 14. The total compensation is calculated as follows:- Loss of income Rs.16,63,200/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 80,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 29,869/- Total compensation Rs.18,03,069/- 15. The Appeal is dismissed. Cross objection is partly allowed. No costs. (i) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,47,869/- to Rs.18,03,100/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. (ii) The Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.18,03,100/- (less the amount if any 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. (iii) On such deposit being made by the Transport Corporation, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as apportioned by the Tribunal with interest and costs immediately, on the filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less the amount, if already withdrawn by them. The Claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default.