JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation from Rs.16,31,520/- to Rs. 24,19,200/- by modifying the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 dated 20.07.2018. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.07.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Karur.) Common Judgment: 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 dated 20.07.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of same order passed in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015, C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 is taken as the lead case and the word ''appellant'' will denote the claimants who are the appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 and the word ''respondents'' will denote the respondents in C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020. The appellants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015, claiming compensation for the death of one Subbaiya, in an accident that took place on 02.12.2014. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,31,520/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) as compensation. Against the award, the second respondent in the claim petition has filed C.M.A. (MD)No.232 of 2020 and the claimants has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.186 of 2015 is as follows: On 02.12.2014, at about 04.00 p.m., when the deceased Subbaiah was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-45-W-8741 keeping the left side of the Palayam to Trichy main road, near Kakkampatti bus stop, a bus bearing registration No.TN-47-AW-3306 was proceeding ahead of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and the respondent bus driver stopped the bus without giving any signal to the following vehicle and the deceased lost the control of the two wheeler and hit against the back side of the bus and he died on the spot. The petitioners 1 and 3 who were the pillion riders, sustained multiple injuries. The deceased was aged about 34 years. The petitioners 1 and 3 who were the pillion riders, sustained multiple injuries. The deceased was aged about 34 years. The deceased owned five acres of land and that he was engaged in agriculture and he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from agriculture and he was doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The petitioners are his dependants and they claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows: The first respondent''s driver was not having valid driving licence. The bus did not have valid permit or fitness certificate to ply on the road. The deceased was not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are all false. The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is false. It was the deceased, who rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without a driving licence and he lost control due to high speed, when he tried to overtake the bus and he invited the accident. The averment of the deceased was having five acres of land and engaged in agriculture and he was doing milk vending business and earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was false and the claim is excessive. 5. The first respondent remained ex parte. On the side of the claimants, one witness was examined and 12 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,31,520/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) as compensation to be paid by the second respondent and that the Tribunal has fixed 40% towards contributory negligence. Against which, the appellants have preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 6. Brief substance of the grounds of appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 is as follows: The Tribunal failed to consider that there is no evidence to prove that there was contributory negligence to be fixed on the deceased. The Tribunal failed to consider that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The chargesheet was filed only against the bus driver. The respondents failed to produce any rebuttal evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The chargesheet was filed only against the bus driver. The respondents failed to produce any rebuttal evidence. P.W.1 has stated that in the affidavit, it is stated that the motorcycle dashed against the bus in speed and that does not mean that the motorcycle was ridden in rash and negligent manner and the statement of P.W.1 was only a typographical error. The Tribunal failed to consider that no steps was taken by the respondent to produce the driving licence and the respondents failed to summon the RTO official to prove that there was no driving licence. Fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is wrong and the percentage of the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. The award amount is low and the same is to be enhanced. 7. Brief substance of the grounds of appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.232 of 2020 is as follows: The quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) without any proof of avocation and income and the fixation of Rs.4,800/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as loss of future prospect is also untenable and unacceptable. The agricultural work and milk vending business can be continued by the family members and there could not be a total loss of income. The grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards loss of love and affection is untenable. In view of the dictum of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Praney Sethi case, the total compensation is excessive. 8. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the profession of the deceased was not at all denied by the respondents. It was the bus driver, who applied brake without any signal and that was the only reason for the motorcycle to hit the bus. P.W.1 has deposed that it was the bus, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and was suddenly stopped without any signal and caused the accident. When P.W.1 has mentioned in her deposition, her intention is to mention that it was the bus, which was rash and negligence driving in a speedy manner. P.W.1 has deposed that it was the bus, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and was suddenly stopped without any signal and caused the accident. When P.W.1 has mentioned in her deposition, her intention is to mention that it was the bus, which was rash and negligence driving in a speedy manner. Instead of considering the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal has interpreted the sentence that it was the motorcyclist, who drove the vehicle in a rash manner. 9. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that except the first claimant, no body else was there to prove the negligence on the part of the bus driver. No independent witness was examined on the side of the claimants. Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 are Aadhar and other documents regarding the identity of the claimants. The copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P1. MV report was marked as Ex.P3. The copy of the rough sketch was marked as Ex.P4. The copy of the chargesheet was marked as Ex.P5. 10. It is seen that the FIR and chargesheet were lodged against the driver of the bus. P.W.1 has deposed that it was the bus driver who was rash and negligent. Hence, it is decided that the bus driver was rash and negligent at the time of accident and he suddenly applied brake without giving any signal and due to same, the two wheeler hit the bus from behind and considering the fact that if at all sufficient space was taken by the motorcyclist, the accident might have been avoided. It is decided that the deceased has also contributed to the accident and that the claimants failed to produce the driving licence of the deceased. The respondents also failed to examine any witness to prove that the deceased was not having valid driving licence. In the above circumstances, 20% of contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased and 80% of contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the driver of the bus. 11. The respondents also failed to examine any witness to prove that the deceased was not having valid driving licence. In the above circumstances, 20% of contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the deceased and 80% of contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the driver of the bus. 11. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the deceased was having five acres of agricultural land and he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per annum through agriculture and that the deceased was doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month and that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) which is very low and that the same is to be enhanced. On the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. 12. No independent witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents to prove that the deceased was having five acres of land and that he was earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as income Considering the date of accident, the notional income of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) is fixed to assess the loss of income. After deducting 1/4th for his own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.6,750/- (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to his family members. After adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income is fixed as Rs.9,450/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only). The age of the deceased is 34 years. Hence, multiplier ''16'' is to be adopted. After adopting multiplier ''16'', the loss of income is calculated as Rs.18,14,400/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and Four Hundred only). 13. Considering the dictum of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Praney Sethi case, a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) is to be added towards conventional charges. After adding 10% towards conventional charges, the compensation is calculated as Rs.18,91,400/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety One Thousand and Four Hundred only). After deducting 20% towards contributory negligence, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,13,120/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) as total compensation. 14. In the result, C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 is dismissed and C.M.A. (MD)No.232 of 2020 is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.16,31,520/- to Rs.15,13,120/-. After deducting 20% towards contributory negligence, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,13,120/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) as total compensation. 14. In the result, C.M.A.(MD)No.220 of 2020 is dismissed and C.M.A. (MD)No.232 of 2020 is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.16,31,520/- to Rs.15,13,120/-. (i) The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,13,120/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.15,13,120/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) with 7.5% interest from date of the claim petition till the date of deposit and the amount if not deposited earlier, has to be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ii) The first claimant/wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.5,13,120/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) with propotionate interest and costs. The fourth claimant/mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with propotionate interest. On deposit, the claimants 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, after deducting any amount received by them earlier. (iii) The minor claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) each with propotionate interest and costs. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants 2 and 3 in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in a Fixed Deposit scheme, till they attain majority. The first claimant, who is the mother and guardian of the minor claimants, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minors. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any. Excess amount if any shall be refunded to the appellant/insurance company. No Costs.