JUDGMENT : (S. SOUNTHAR, J.) Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special District Court, MCOP Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.1220 of 2021, dated 01.09.2022, the claimants have come by way of this appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the husband of the 1 st claimant, father of the claimants 2 to 4 and son of the 5 th claimant namely Selvaraj died in a road accident that had occurred on 18.03.2021. It was the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that when deceased Selvaraj was engaged in his work site, the chain of the JCB Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 93 D 3760 got disconnected and fell on the head of the deceased and thereby, caused death. It was claimed that the deceased was aged about 44 years and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a Crusher Machine Operator. The claim petition was laid seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the JCB Vehicle. 3. The 1 st respondent filed counter and claimed that JCB Vehicle was operated by its driver in a careful manner and unfortunately, its bucket hit on the deceased whereby the accident took place. It was also stated that the 1 st respondent paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.8,00,000/- lakhs by way of Demand Drafts to the claimants) and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter stating that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company was not at all liable to pay the compensation. The 2 nd respondent also raised a plea that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the 1 st respondent shall be deducted while computing the compensation payable to the claimants. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1 st appellant/1 st claimant was examined as PW.1 and on behalf of the claimants, 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW.1 and RW.2 and on their behalf, 9 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R9. A copy of Register was marked as Ex.X1. 6. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW.1 and RW.2 and on their behalf, 9 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R9. A copy of Register was marked as Ex.X1. 6. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the 1 st respondent's JCB Vehicle and quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.11,55,000/-. After deducting Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the 1 st respondent to the claimants, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.1,55,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have come by way of this appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting Rs.10,00,000/- allegedly paid by 1 st respondent to the claimants. The learned counsel further submits that the said amount was paid by the 1 st respondent as a repayment of loan obtained by him. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal fixed notional income of Rs.10,000/- for the accident occurred in the year 2021 and the same is very much on lower side. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that Ex.R8-Receipt signed by the claimant for having received Rs.10,00,000/- from the 1 st respondent would establish the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the claimants towards compensation and hence, the Tribunal is justified in deducting the said amount. The learned counsel further submits that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the avocation and income of the deceased and hence, the amount of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as notional income is justified. 9. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that deceased was employed as Crusher Machine Operator and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, in order to prove the avocation or income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income has been fixed. The accident had occurred in the year 2021, taking into consideration the date of accident and cost of living, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.18,000/- as notional income. The amount of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side. The accident had occurred in the year 2021, taking into consideration the date of accident and cost of living, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.18,000/- as notional income. The amount of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very much on lower side. Ex.P2-Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P3-Aadhaar Card of the deceased would establish that the age of the deceased was only 44 years on the date of accident. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 25% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 14 instead of 11 as applied by the Tribunal. In such case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.28,35,000/- towards loss of dependency (Rs.18,000 x 1.25 x 12 x 14 x 3/4). 10. In addition to the above said amount, the 1 st claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium. Since the accident had occurred after three years from the date of judgment passed by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others dated 31.10.2017. The claimants 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each under the head loss of love and affection. The 5 th claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- under the head of loss of parental consortium. The claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. In all the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,88,000/-. 11. It is the case of the 1 st respondent that after accident, it paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the claimants towards compensation. Ex.R8 is the receipt executed by the claimants acknowledging the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- from the 1 st respondent. A close perusal of the said document would indicate that the claimants received Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.8,00,000/- by way of demand drafts drawn in Central Bank of India, Mettur Branch. The said exhibit was marked through PW.1 during her cross examination by learned counsel for the 1 st respondent. 12. Though it was claimed by the claimants that the 1 st respondent only repaid the loan obtained from the claimants, there is no positive evidence to support the said case of the claimants. A perusal of the Ex.R8 clearly established that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the 1 st respondent only as a compensation for the death of Selvaraj. A perusal of the Ex.R8 clearly established that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the 1 st respondent only as a compensation for the death of Selvaraj. The signatures of the claimants found in Ex.R8 were clearly admitted by PW.1 in her evidence. Therefore, this Court holds Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the 1 st respondent only as a compensation for the death of Selvaraj. 13. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the 1 st respondent. Therefore, the primary liability is on the 1 st respondent to pay the compensation. In the case on hand, the 1 st respondent already paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the claimants and the same is established by Ex.R8. As mentioned earlier, this Court quantified the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.30,88,000/-. Since a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was already paid by the 1 st respondent, the 2 nd respondent/insurer is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20,88,000/- to the claimants. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Description Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Remarks 1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,90,000/- Rs.28,35,000/- Enhanced 2. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,32,000/- Enhanced 3. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.44,000/- Enhanced 4. Loss of parental consortium - Rs.44,000/- Granted 5. Funeral Expenses+Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/- 33,000/- Enhanced Total Rs.11,55,000/- Rs.30,88,000/- Enhanced Already petitioners received Rs.10,00,000/- from the 1st respondent Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- Confirmed Balance Total Rs.1,55,000/- Rs.20,88,000/- Enhanced 14. In view of the discussions made earlier, the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.20,88,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition to the date of realisation (excluding the delay period of 618 days as per order in C.M.P.No.22577 of 2024 for the enhanced amount) after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1220 of 2021 on the file of the Special District Court, MCOP Tribunal, Salem, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 15. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount by making proper application before the Tribunal, subject to satisfying the Tribunal as to the attainment of majority by 4 th claimant. 15. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount by making proper application before the Tribunal, subject to satisfying the Tribunal as to the attainment of majority by 4 th claimant. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay applicable additional court fee. 16. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. It is always open to the 1 st respondent to work out its remedy against the 2 nd respondent/Insurance Company under contract of insurance in so far as the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid by it to the claimants. No costs.