JUDGMENT : The fourth respondent/The National Insurance Company Ltd., in M.C.O.P No.2688 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Cuddalore/ is the appellant herein. 2. They question the Judgment in aforementioned M.C.O.P. No.2688 of 2013, dated 08.09.2015. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition were as follows: One Gopalakrishnan, was said to be aged about 35 years and was said to be earning around Rs.30,000/- per month as an Agricultural Land owner, also doing Real Estate business and also a Building Contractor. On 03.08.2013 at around 9.15 p.m., Gopalakrishnan was driving his motor-cycle bearing Registration No.TN 31 AH 7796 on Cuddalore – Vridhachalam Main Road. Nearing Thambipettai, two Trailers, bearing Registration Nos. TN 31 AD 1854 and TN 31 A 9240 were parked on the road. It is alleged that they were parked with one half portion of the road and another half portion on the side of the road, and without any parking light indication. Gopalakrishnan, who was driving the motor-cycle, hit the rear Trailer and suffered injuries all over his body and in his head. He was taken to the Kurinjipadi Government Hospital, and was given first aid treatment. But however, he died. 4. It is also to be noted that his wife had predeceased him and he was survived by his two minor children, a young boy and a young girl. They had filed the aforementioned M.C.O.P.No.2688 of 2013 seeking compensation for the death of their father. 5. The two Trailers were insured with two separate Insurance Companies. The Trailer at the rear side namely TN 31 A 9240 on which Gopalakrishnan actually dashed his motor-cycle, was insured with the New India Insurance Company which was shown as the second respondent in the claim petition. The Trailer in the front, namely TN 31 AD 1854 was insured with the fourth respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2688 of 2013 namely the National Insurance Company Limited. They are the appellant herein. 6. The two owners of the Insurance Companies had also been impleaded as the first and third respondents. All the respondents filed their counter, questioning the manner in which the accident had occurred, questioning the liability of each one of them and also claiming contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Gopalakrishnan for the accident. 7. 6. The two owners of the Insurance Companies had also been impleaded as the first and third respondents. All the respondents filed their counter, questioning the manner in which the accident had occurred, questioning the liability of each one of them and also claiming contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Gopalakrishnan for the accident. 7. The Tribunal, by Judgment dated 08.09.2015, had granted a total compensation of Rs.8,08,000/- and directed that each one of the two minor children would get 50% of the compensation amount. The Tribunal had also directed that the two Insurance Companies were about equally liable to pay the compensation and directed that each one of them should pay 50% of the compensation. 8. Aggrieved by that particular portion of the Judgment directing that the Insurance Company of the Trailer which was parked in front should also pay 50% of the compensation granted, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Heard Mr.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the appellant/ the National Insurance Company Limited and Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the other Insurance Company namely the New India Assurance Company Limited and also Mr.S.Sudharshan, learned counsel for the claimants. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Michael Visuvasam, that apportioning 50% of the claim amount to the Trailer parked in the front was extremely unreasonable owing to lack of cogent evidence that the two Trailers were joined together. 11. It is his further contention that the word used in the evidence was bjhlh;e;J and this would only indicate that the first Trailer was parked on the side of the road and the second Trailer was immediately after that, independently parked on the side of the road and therefore if the motor bike had dashed against the trailer at the rear, the compensation should be borne only by the insurer of the said Trailer at the rear and the Insurer of the Trailer in the front should not have been directed to bear 50% of the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal. 12. 12. Mr.M.Sudharshan, learned counsel for the claimants had pointed out that though the compensation granted by the Tribunal had been quite reasonable, unfortunately the Tribunal had not taken into account the Constitutional Bench Judgment in National Insurance Company versus Pranay Sethi, 2007 (16) SCC 680, wherein, it had been held that 40% additional amount should be given as loss of future prospects. 13. Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel who appeared for the New India Assurance Company Limited, who was the Insurance Company of the Trailer parked at the rear side, on the other hand, stated that though 50% of the compensation had been apportioned between the two insurance companies, the appeal is also directed against the finding of no negligence on the part of the driver of the motor bike and insisted that the said point should also be considered. 14. On that aspect, it had been pointed out by the learned counsel Mr.Michael Visuvasam, that there is no evidence that Gopalakrishnan had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was therefore stated that the negligence was not properly decided to prove the manner in which the accident occurred and it was urged that therefore some compensation/contribution should also be mulcted on the deceased for the accident. 15. The records are available. 16. I had the benefit of hearing the arguments advanced as aforementioned and I also perused the records available. 17. The first point to be examined is whether the apportionment of the compensation amount between the two Insurance Companies is proper and lawful in the circumstances of the case. 18. The facts of the case are the two Trailers were parked one behind the other, on the left side of the road but one half of the trailers was protruding on the road. The Trailer in the front had registration No.TN 3 AD 1854. The Trailer in the back had registration No.TN 31 A 9240. The Trailer in the front had been insured with the appellant Insurance Company/National Insurance Company Limited. The Trailer at the rear side had been insured with the fourth respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited. 19. The accident occurred at 9.15 p.m., when, the deceased Gopalakrishnan, was driving a motor bike bearing registration No. TN 31 AH 7796 in Cuddalore to Vridhachalam Main Road. The Trailer at the rear side had been insured with the fourth respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited. 19. The accident occurred at 9.15 p.m., when, the deceased Gopalakrishnan, was driving a motor bike bearing registration No. TN 31 AH 7796 in Cuddalore to Vridhachalam Main Road. In the night, it is admitted that the Trailer which was not attached to the engine or tractor of either one of the two Trailers. In the absence of the Trailer being attached with the engine, there cannot be any possibility of there being a rear light shining on either one of the two trailers. During the course of evidence there had been a suggestion put forth that the reflector mirror had been placed and if the motor bike head light had flashed on the reflector mirror of the rear side Trailer then the Trailer would have been identified. That is too extreme a presumption to be drawn. 20. The fact is that at 9.15 in the night, two trailers were parked, one behind the other and with one half of the trailers protruding on the road. It is also seen that the motor bike had hit in the back side rear, at the right hand side portion of the trailer which means that the deceased had hit the trailer not straight at the back side but on the right hand side, which also means that it was only because of the protrusion of the trailer towards on the road that the accident occurred. 21. The issue of driving licence, pales into insignificance since the negligence is apparent in the manner in which the accident occurred. It is not denied that there had been no rear light on the two trailers shining to give an indication that the trailers had been parked on the side of the road. In the absence of any evidence on that particular fact I would not mulct any liability on the part of the driver of the motor bike. 22. The further issue which has to be decided is whether the trailer in the front could be imposed with liability of 50%. This naturally requires some evidence that the two trailers were joined together. The word used was consecutively, (OTHER LANGUAGE)namely one trailer in the front and the other trailer in the back. 22. The further issue which has to be decided is whether the trailer in the front could be imposed with liability of 50%. This naturally requires some evidence that the two trailers were joined together. The word used was consecutively, (OTHER LANGUAGE)namely one trailer in the front and the other trailer in the back. The fact the trailers were joined is revealed in the FIR/Ex.P1 where it had been very clearly stated as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE 23. The learned counsel for the appellant however questioned the veracity of that particular statement in the First Information Report, contending that it was only an information reduced a writing and cannot be stated as a substantial basis of evidence. 24. It had been stated in the complaint as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE 25. It must be kept in mind that the Tribunal is vested with the powers of a Civil Court while recording evidence under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even though the inquiry is to be conducted in summary manner under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, still while recording the evidence, the authority of a Civil Court is available. The Tribunal can summon witnesses and examine the documents filed. The First Information Report clearly states that the two trailers were joined together. Thereafter while explaining this, it had been stated that one trailer was parked in the front and immediately behind it, the other one was also parked. The Tribunal had also examined that particular statement and had pointed out that since the two trailers were joined together, both the Insurance Companies were liable to pay 50% of the compensation granted. I would affirm that particular finding of fact by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal raised on that particular issue. 26. The learned counsel for the claimant pointed out the Constitution Bench Judgment in Pranay Sethi (referred supra) and reported in 2007 (16) SCC 680 wherein, the Constitution Bench had affirmed grant of 40% towards loss of future income can be granted in appropriate cases. 27. In the instant case a further consideration to be examined is that two children had already lost their mother who had predeceased their father, and then lost their father in the accident. They were both minors at the time of filing of the claim petition. 27. In the instant case a further consideration to be examined is that two children had already lost their mother who had predeceased their father, and then lost their father in the accident. They were both minors at the time of filing of the claim petition. The first claimant was aged about 12 years and the second claimant was aged about 11 years. They were taken care of by their aunt. Their paternal grant mother was also expired. 28. In view of that particular circumstance, following the ratio of the Constitutional Bench Judgment I would grant 40% towards loss of future prospects. The Tribunal had decided the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.6,000/- per month. The annual income was determined at Rs.72,000/- (6000X12). Thereafter, 1/3rd had been deducted towards his personal expenses. The annual income would come to Rs.48,000/- (72000 X 2/3). The loss of future income at 40% would mean that Rs.28,800/- (72000 X 40%) will have to be added. Then the annual income would come to Rs.76,800/- (48000 + 28800). The multiplier ‘16’ has to be adopted. Then the total loss of income would be (76800 X 16) Rs.12,28,800/-. 29. The compensation granted under other heads are retained by me namely Rs.10,000/- each (Rs.20,000/-) towards loss of father and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation now granted by this Court is Rs.12,68,800/-[1228800 +20000+10000+10000]. 30. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,08,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.12,68,800/- [Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only] together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The apportionment of 50% is to be shared by the both claimants is confirmed by me. The apportionment of 50% to be paid by the two Insurance Companies is also confirmed by me. Both the appellant and the fourth respondent are directed to deposit 50% each, of the enhanced compensation amount together with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. Both the appellant and the fourth respondent are directed to deposit 50% each, of the enhanced compensation amount together with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The said amount is to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, in any interest bearing Fixed Deposit Scheme till the minors/1st and 2nd respondents attain majority. On such deposit, Mrs.Valli, being the aunt/guardian of the minors/1st and 2nd respondents, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minors/1st and 2nd respondents. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee if any, for the enhanced amount of compensation. In other aspects, the Award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.