JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 20.12.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 20.12.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur.) Common Judgment 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur. 2. The Transport Corporation has filed the appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.714 of 2020 against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 on the ground that three persons have travelled in the bike and hence, they are contributed for the negligence and also on the quantum of compensation. 3. The claimants have filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / Transport Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondents / claim petitioners, who are the cross-objectors. 5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- and at the time of the accident, he is 37 years. However, future prospects was not given and on that sole ground, the cross objection has been filed seeking for enhancement of compensation. 6. The legal representatives of the deceased Thangaraj, aged about 37 years, have filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the said Thangaraj in the road accident happened on 22.11.2017. 7. In the claim petition as well as in the evidence of P.W.1, it is averred that on 22.11.2017 at about 06.15 p.m., the deceased Thangaraj was travelling as a pillion rider in a Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-BU-4140 along with one Balaji which was ridden by one Periyasamy and they were keeping to extreme left side of the road from south to north and reached near Manvadi RV Bricks at Dindigul to Karur Main road. During that time, the driver of the TNSTC bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2301 was came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the road traffic rules and hit against the deceased travelling in the motorcycle. During that time, the driver of the TNSTC bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2301 was came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the road traffic rules and hit against the deceased travelling in the motorcycle. As a result of the sudden impact, the deceased Thangaraj was fell down and sustained serious head injures and grievous fracture over both the legs and injuries all over the body and the rider of the motorcycle was sustained injuries and subsequently died on the way to the hospital and another traveller of the said motorcycle was also sustained injuries. 8. The appellant / Transport Corporation has filed counter disputing the liability on the ground that at the time of riding the two wheeler, three persons have travelled in the two wheeler and that is the cause for the accident and therefore contributory negligence has to be fixed upon the rider of the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider, besides the deceased has not worn helmet. 9. One of the occurrence witnesses, namely, Mani, is examined as P.W.2 on the side of the claimants. On the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus, namely, Paramalingam is examined as R.W.1. As the occurrence witness P.W.2, Mani was examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, he could depose the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition that he had witnessed the accident, when he was returning from Velliyani to Dindigul on Dindigul to Karur road. He also admitted in the crossexamination that at the time of the accident, three persons have travelled in the two wheeler and categorically stated that the driver of the bus alone is negligent and thereby, he has caused the accident. The said version of the oral evidence of P.W.2 is duly corroborated by the documentary evidence of Ex.P.1, so also, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. On behalf of the Transport Corporation, R.W.1 was examined who is the driver of the bus. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the police have registered the case against him and he was also charge-sheeted. This Court is of the view that merely because, three persons have travelled in a two wheeler, will not amount to contributory negligence unless it is established by preponderance of probability. 10. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the police have registered the case against him and he was also charge-sheeted. This Court is of the view that merely because, three persons have travelled in a two wheeler, will not amount to contributory negligence unless it is established by preponderance of probability. 10. As stated supra, the evidence of R.W.1 appears to be only a self-serving statement to save the skin in the criminal and the disciplinary proceedings. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and documentary evidence, I find that the accident has takenplace due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. In the absence of anything being elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2, I find that the evidence of P.W.2 is duly corroborated by documentary evidence of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 and therefore, merely because three persons have travelled in the two wheeler, cannot automatically jump to the conclusion that they have contributed the accident. Furthermore, the death of the person due to the injuries, is not demonstrated due to the non-wearing of the helmet. No suggestion has been made to P.W.2 in this regard and therefore, I find that the accident was takenplace due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the rider of the two wheeler has not contributed to the accident and accordingly, the finding rendered by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. 11. On the point of quantum of compensation, both the parties were heard. 12. It appears from the records that as per Ex.P.2, Postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased is 37 years and he was doing centering work in a construction field at Karur and the notional income is fixed at Rs.11,000/-. Since the date of accident is on 22.11.2017, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. As there are four dependents, 1/4th deduction has to be made. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), multiplier 15 was adopted for the age group of 36 to 40 and therefore I find that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.11,000/- and adoption of multiplier 15, are just and fair. 13. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), multiplier 15 was adopted for the age group of 36 to 40 and therefore I find that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.11,000/- and adoption of multiplier 15, are just and fair. 13. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that it is the specific case of the claim petitioners / cross objectors that future prospects is not included. Accordingly, considering the age group, namely, 36 to 40, 40% has to be added towards future prospects and hence, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.15,400/- [11,000 + 4,400 = 15,400]. Taking into consideration the number of dependants being 4 in number, 1/4th amount has to be deducted and hence, the pecuniary loss sustained by the claim petitioners are reassessed as under: Calculation Notional income = Rs.11,000/- 40% Future Prospects = Rs. 4,400/- Total = Rs.11,000 + Rs.4,400 = Rs.15,400/- Loss of dependency = Rs.15,400 X 12 X 15- 1/4 deduction = Rs.20,79,000/- 14. Apart from the above amount, the first claim petitioner is entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/-. The claim petitioners 2 to 4 each are entitled for Rs.40,000/-, totally Rs.1,20,000/- towards parental consortium and the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is deleted. The compensation awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, medical and transport expenses are just and reasonable and accordingly, the same are confirmed. 15. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,85,400/- Rs. 20,79,000/- 2 Loss of Consortium to the first appellant Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 3. Loss of parental consortium to the appellants 2 to 4 ----- Rs. 1,20,000 /- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 1,56,850/- Rs. 1,56,850/- 6. Medical and Transport Expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- ---- 7. Loss of love and affection Rs. 2,00,000/- ---- Total Rs. 19,11,850/- Rs. 24,25,850/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.19,11,850/- to Rs.24,25,850/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 16. In the result, C.M.A(MD)No.714 of 2020 is dismissed and Cross Objection(MD)No.15 of 2021 is partly allowed. 2,00,000/- ---- 7. Loss of love and affection Rs. 2,00,000/- ---- Total Rs. 19,11,850/- Rs. 24,25,850/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.19,11,850/- to Rs.24,25,850/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 16. In the result, C.M.A(MD)No.714 of 2020 is dismissed and Cross Objection(MD)No.15 of 2021 is partly allowed. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.19,11,850/- to Rs.24,25,850 /- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The respondents/claimants are directed to pay the Court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount and the Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the receipt of Court fee. The appellant herein – Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs. 24,25,850/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.593 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / District Court, Karur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made by the appellant / Insurance Company, the respondents 1 and 4 herein are at liberty to withdraw the same, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after following due process of law. The second and third appellants herein are minors, and therefore, their shares of compensation amount are ordered to be deposited in any one of the nationalized bank until they attain majority and the first appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest directly from the bank, once in three months in order to maintain the minors. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.