S.Manikumar, J.

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, has questioned the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,55,715/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim till deposit, awarded to the wife, two minor children, and parents of one Thirunavukkarasu, who died in the accident, which occurred on 22.02.2011.

2. Before the Claims Tribunal, respondents/legal representatives of the deceased claimed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years, and as a Cutting Operator in Ittarus Shoe Company, Ambur, earned a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Age of the deceased was fixed as 33 years, on the basis of Date of Birth, mentioned in Ex.P-12, Transfer Certificate. To prove the avocation, besides oral evidence, respondents/claimants have marked Ex.P-7 -Salary Slips (Series). Accepting the avocation pleaded, and taking note of Ex.P-7 series, monthly salary slips, the Claims Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal added up 50% towards future prospects and fixed the income as Rs.9,000/- per month, for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency. Taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, the Tribunal applied 17 multiplier. As there were five dependants, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal worked out the loss of dependency as Rs.13,77,000/- (Rs.9,000 x ¼ x 17x 12).

3. Taking note of Ex.P-5 – Medical Bills, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,715/- towards Medical Expenses. Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for transportation. For loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each to the legal representatives. Altogether, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under the said head. In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium. In fine, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,55,715/-, as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

4. Assailing the correctness of the quantum of compensation, Mrs.R.Vijaya Kamala, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-, in the absence of any proof. According to her, as the employer of the deceased was not examined, credence ought not to have been given to Ex.P-7 series. She further submitted that when the deceased did not have a permanent employment, 50% of the salary ought not to have been added, under the head future prospects, for computing the loss of dependency. She also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken only a notional income of Rs.4,500/-, for assessment of dependency.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 to 5/claimants, that in Vellore District, there is lot of leather manufacturing activity and that the deceased was engaged in a shoe company, as a Cutting Operator. Having regard to the number of dependants in the family, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that Rs.6,000/- fixed as monthly income of the deceased cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be on the higher side. He further submitted that the addition of 50% to the income, drawn at the time of accident, under the head 'future prospects', cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable, in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santhosh Devi v. National Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892 and Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 54. He further submitted that though the deceased was working in a private company, salary or earning would not remain static for all the years to come and, therefore, addition of 50