JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Vignesh, who died in the accident that took place on 07.10.2015. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, on 07.10.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased Vignesh was walking on the Chikkathogur road in front of Janapriya Sweet Palace, Bangalore City, Karnataka, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA 03 MA 8413, drove the car from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, endangering public safety and dashed against the said Vignesh and caused the accident. Immediately after the accident, the said Vignesh was taken to Pralaksha Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter he was referred to Xcellent Care Hospital, Chennai. Inspite of medical treatment, the said Vignesh succumbed to injuries on 25.10.2015. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents 4, 5 and appellant. 4. The respondents 4 & 5, being the owners of the car remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company, the insurer of the car filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 3. The appellant denied the validity of vehicle records, driving license of the driver of the car and the insurance coverage of the car at the time of accident. The appellant-Insurance Company stated that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the car and the accident has occurred only due to negligent act of the deceased. The appellant denied the validity of vehicle records, driving license of the driver of the car and the insurance coverage of the car at the time of accident. The appellant-Insurance Company stated that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the car and the accident has occurred only due to negligent act of the deceased. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined himself as P.W.1, one Rajmahandhar, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 7. 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 car belonging to respondents 4 & 5 and directed the appellant, being the insurer of the car to pay a sum of Rs.41,90,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 & 2 and dismissed the claim petition as against the 3rd respondent. 8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 27.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, the appellant – Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal without any basis, erroneously fixed a sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought not to have fixed more than a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal erroneously granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. After the completion of his studies, the deceased did not have employment for one year. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for reducing the amount granted by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Engineer in a Private Company and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Engineer in a Private Company and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has fixed only a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the entire materials on record. 12. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Engineer in a Private Company and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The respondents 1 to 3 did not file ID card, Attendance Register, salary slip or bank account statement of the deceased to prove their case. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal considering Ex.P12 / copy of B.E. Certificate & Ex.P13 / Provisional Certificate of B.E. of the deceased and the year of accident, fixed a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. Considering the year of accident, age and educational qualification of the deceased and failure on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 to prove the avocation of the deceased, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and hence, the monthly income of the deceased is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. As per Ex.P10/postmortem certificate, the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident. 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], the Tribunal has rightly granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied multiplier 18'. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. 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 18'. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, by fixing a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, granting 40% enhancement towards future prospects, applying multiplier 18' and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is modified to Rs.22,68,000/- {Rs.21,000/- [(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,000/- (40% of Rs.15,000/-)] x 12 x 18 x 1/2}. 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 37,80,000/- 22,68,000/- Reduced 2. Loss of love and Affection 80,000/- 80,000/- Confirmed 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 4. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Confirmed 5. Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- Confirmed 6. Medical expenses 2,89,057/- 2,89,057/- Confirmed Total Rs.41,89,057/- Rounded off to Rs.41,90,000/- Rs.26,77,057/- Rounded off to Rs.26,78,000/- Reduced by Rs.15,12,000/- 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.41,90,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.26,78,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. On such deposit, the respondents 1 & 2 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. On such deposit, the respondents 1 & 2 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 appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.8621 of 2015, if the entire award amount has been already deposited by them. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as against the 3rd respondent. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.