JUDGMENT : J. Nisha Banu, J. Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for clarification'. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. When the matter was listed on 24.01.2025, this Court, considering the submissions made on either side, partly allowed the Appeal by fixing 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was riding the motor cycle without wearing helmet. However, before signing the order, this Court found from the rough sketch Ex.X1 that it was the lorry which came in the wrong direction, due to which, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the entire negligence has to be fixed only on the part of the driver of the lorry and 10% contributory negligence ought not to have been fixed on the deceased. Therefore, the matter is posted under the caption 'for clarification' today (19.02.2025). Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and clarifying the above aspects and hence, the following order is passed. 2 This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 26.07.2022 passed in MCOP.No.378 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Tindivanam. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. The case of the petitioners in the claim petition is that on 18.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-32-Q-6205 from Nallalam to Kilarungunam. At that time, the 1st respondent vehicle bearing registration No.TN-31-J- 8390 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. According to the petitioners the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle. The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor son and daughter of the deceased. The 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent who is the owner and the 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the 1st respondent vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners claim a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation. 5. The 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent who is the owner and the 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the 1st respondent vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners claim a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel the appellant Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the materials available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would state that the Tribunal erred in holding that the lorry driver was negligent in driving and caused the accident. He would further state that the deceased himself invited the accident. He would further state that the deceased was riding the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and fell in front of the lorry and caused the accident. Further, the deceased was not wearing the helmet at the time of accident and not even holding any licence. He would further state that in any event, the Tribunal ought to have atleast attributed substantial contributory negligence upon the deceased. He would further state that the amount awarded under the heads, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are on the higher side. Therefore, he would pray that the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would state that the driver of the 1st respondent lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the lorry was travelling on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased, resulting in crushing of the head of the deceased through the right side tyre of the lorry. Learned counsel would further state that though the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, he would seek for enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned counsel would further state that though the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- at the time of accident, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, he would seek for enhancement of compensation. 8. The Tribunal, under the impugned award, directed the Insurance Company to pay the claimants, a compensation of Rs.20,79,400/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs Seventy Nine thousand and Four hundred only) as detailed hereunder : Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Loss of income 18,14,400 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 Funeral expenses 20,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of companionship 30,000 Total 20,79,400 9. As regards negligence is concerned, it is seen from the rough sketch that it was the lorry which came in the wrong direction and dashed against the two wheeler. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the entire negligence has to be fixed only on the part of the lorry driver and the Tribunal has also rightly fixed the negligence on the lorry driver. Therefore, we do no find any error in the said findings of the Tribunal insofar as negligence is concerned. 10. It is seen from the records that the deceased Balamurugan was aged 22 years at the time of accident. According to the claimants, he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Since the claimants have not produced any documents to prove the income of deceased, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, which in our opinion is reasonable. Further, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2018) 1 LW 331 has rightly added 40% towards future prospects (i.e., Rs.8000 + 3200 = 11,200). As there are four dependents for the deceased, as per the dictum laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma's case, 1/4th had been deducted for his personal expenses (i.e.,11200-2800=8400) and considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 18 and awarded a sum of Rs.18,14,400/- (8400 x 12 x18 = 18,14,400) towards loss of income of the deceased, with which, we are not inclined to interfere with. 11. 11. Insofar as the award granted under the other heads viz., loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of companionship are concerned, we find that the said amount awarded by the Tribunal are reasonable and hence, sustainable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be confirmed. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the sum of Rs.20,79,400/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5/claimants, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and cost, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 4 and 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The shares of the minors/respondents 2 & 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks till they minors attain majority. The 1 st respondent being the mother of the minors/respondents 2 & 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minors. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.