JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed u/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.919 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri.) D. Krishnakumar, J. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in and by its judgement and decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.919 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases, Krishnagiri, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 27.04.2005, Dr.P.Kappil Devh boarded the M.S.Raja Bus bearing Registration No.TN-30/F-3996 at 12.00 hours from Namakkal Bus Stand to go to Salem after completing B.V.Sc. Course at Namakkal. He was seated on the backside of the driver's seat in the said bus in the window side along with his brother Nethaji. When the bus was proceeding near Ayeepalayam Rasi Nutri Food company, in Namakkal to Salem Main Road, the driver of the said bus drove the same rashly and in a negligent manner and it dashed against an oncoming lorry bearing Registration No.TNA 4675, insured with the fifth respondent insurance company, which was coming in the opposite direction. The right side window portion of the bus dashed on the lorry and due to the impact, Kappil Devh who was seated on the right side of the bus, sustained grievous and fatal injuries on his head. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Rasipuram, but he died on the way to hospital. The claimants, namely G.Rangasamy and Pachiyammal, who are the parents of the deceased Dr.R.Kappil Devh, filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.919 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Princial District Judge), Krishnagiri, claiming compensation of Rs.90,24,950/-. 3. Resisting the claim made by the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants, the appellant insurance company has filed a counter inter alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by respondents 1 and 2. They have denied the basis on which the Trial Court has arrived at the income of the deceased. 4. To prove the claim, first respondent examined himself as PW-1 and also two other witnesses and marked 21 exhibits. On the side of the appellant insurance company, none were examined and no exhibits were marked. They have denied the basis on which the Trial Court has arrived at the income of the deceased. 4. To prove the claim, first respondent examined himself as PW-1 and also two other witnesses and marked 21 exhibits. On the side of the appellant insurance company, none were examined and no exhibits were marked. On the side of the Court, One Nirmala, who was working as Typist in the Veterinary College where the deceased was last working, was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. 5. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TAN 4675, insured with the fifth respondent/New India Insurance Company and also due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 30- F3996, insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.52,60,000/- under the following heads : Sl.No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Future Income(Rs.46,674 – 50% Personal Expenses) x 12 x 18 50,40,792 2. Loss of Love and Affection 2,00,000 3. Transportation 5,000 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000 TOTAL 52,60,792 Rounded off to 52,60,000 The aforesaid compensation was ordered to be payable to the claimants, jointly and severally by the respondents 3 to 5 herein and the appellant herein with interest at 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Out of the award amount of Rs.52,60,000/-, the first claimant is allotted Rs.25,00,000/- and the second claimant is allotted Rs.27,60,000/-. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 6. Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident was caused only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry insured with the fifth respondent company. It is submitted that the fifth respondent Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal before this Court and further the third respondent is not a necessary party. In the light of the above submission, notice as against the third respondent is dispensed with. It is submitted that the fifth respondent Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal before this Court and further the third respondent is not a necessary party. In the light of the above submission, notice as against the third respondent is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in arriving the monthly income of the deceased and in order to arrive the same, the Tribunal has examined PW3- M.Elayabharathi, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and taken into consideration the salary slip of PW3 during December 2014, for the accident which occurred on 2015 and therefore, prays for modification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/insurance company has deposited 50% of their respective share of compensation in pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court and out of the said amount, the legal heirs of the deceased were permitted to withdraw the said amount. Though notice has been served to the claimants / respondents 1 and 2, and their name appeared in the cause notice, none appeared for them. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and also perused the materials on record. 8. Since the quantum of compensation alone is challenged in the present appeal, this Court is not dealing with the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal. Before the Trial Court, PW1 / first respondent was examined on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and it was suggested that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus in which the deceased travelled as a passenger, which was denied by PW1 and he admitted that he was not an eye witness to the accident. PW2- Thiru Nethaji was cross examined on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and he admitted that he had preferred a complaint to the police. 9. The deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. PW2- Thiru Nethaji was cross examined on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and he admitted that he had preferred a complaint to the police. 9. The deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. According to the claimants, the deceased/son was selected for B.V.Sc., Course on merit and he had applied for IAS Examination and received the Hall Ticket for the said examination to be held on 15.05.2005 and his seniors and some of his friends were selected in Civil Services Examination and ranked as IAS and IFS and the deceased had the bright chance of getting qualified in IAS and therefore, he might have earned around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. However, in order to arrive at the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has examined PW3- Thiru M.Elayabharathi, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, and the salary slip of PW3 drawn during December 2014 was taken into consideration for the accident which occurred on 2015 and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the trial Court has lost its sight in arriving the monthly income of the deceased. To that extent the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the fifth respondent Insurance Company pray for modification of the award passed by the Trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the reasonable monthly income of the deceased is Rs.12,000/- per month with 40% for future prospects in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)] and insofar other heads are concerned, Rs.40,000/- each shall be paid for Filial Consortium in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magna General Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others [CDJ 2018 SC 958] and Rs.5,000/- for Transportation Expenses and Rs.15,000/- for Funeral Expenses awarded by the Tribunal are not under dispute. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid fixation of compensation seems to be just and reasonable. 10. In the light of the above and accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, this Court is inclined to modify the amount awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, the modified compensation payable would be: Sl.No. Compensation awarded under theHead Award ofthis Court (in Rs.) 1. 10. In the light of the above and accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, this Court is inclined to modify the amount awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, the modified compensation payable would be: Sl.No. Compensation awarded under theHead Award ofthis Court (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Future Income[Rs.12,000/- p.m. + 40%] = Rs.16800 p.m. x 12 x 18 (Multiplier for 24 years] = Less: 50% Personal Expenses 36,28,80018,14,400 18,14,400 2. Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- each 80,000 3. Transportation Expenses 5,000 4. Funeral expenses 15,000 Total 19,14,400 Rounded of to 19,15,000 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs.52,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.19,15,000/- [Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only], payable jointly and severally by the appellant Insurance Company and 5th respondent Insurance Company with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is represented that the appellant insurance company and the fifth respondent insurance company have already deposited 50% of their respective shares of compensation before the Tribunal, in pursuant to the interim direction of this Court and out of which, the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein were permitted to withdraw the said amount. Therefore, it is made clear that in pursuant to modification of the compensation by this Court, as above, if any excess amount has been withdrawn by the claimants, the appellant insurance company shall not take steps to recover the said amount from the claimants and to that extent, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has agreed for the same. The appellant Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the remaining balance amount / excess amount lying in the Nationalised Bank by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. Since the fifth respondent insurance company did not prefer any appeal, no relief has been granted as against the fifth respondent insurance company. The apportionment of the modified compensation shall be as fixed by the Tribunal. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.