JUDGMENT :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company, against the award of Rs. 16,79,000/- as compensation for the death of one D. Babu, aged about 40 years, an auto driver, allegedly earning about Rs. 25,000/- per month, in the accident, which occurred on 15.12.2013, when he was driving his auto from south to north direction and while turning the auto to the east direction on Poonamallee Trunk Road, the Qualis car belonging to the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant/insurance company came from north to south direction, rashly and negligently and hit the auto.

2. Heard, Mr. M.B. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and Mr. K. Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants.

3. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the auto was coming from south to north direction and it tried to enter the right side of the road, in an attempt to cross the said road, without giving any signal and therefore, the accident could not have been averted. He would further submit that the auto driver should have been careful enough, while turning, that too while crossing the main road. Therefore, the negligence is only on the part of the auto and in no way the driver of the Qualis car, insured with the appellant/insurance company is responsible for the accident. Hence, he seeks to set aside the award.

4. However, Mr. K. Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, would support the award.

5. It is true that the Auto was coming from south to north and while turning towards east, a Qualis car, which was coming from north to south direction collided with the auto. It is also equally true that the driver of the auto should have been careful enough, while crossing the main road. However, after seeing the auto crossing the road, the driver of the Qualis car could have avoided the accident. The very fact that the car hit against the auto would show that no effort was taken by the Qualis car to slow down and to avoid the accident.

6. Further, the manner of the accident was explained in detail by PW2-eyewitness, stating that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the car and not because of the driver of the auto. There is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the insurance company. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence and in view of PW2-eyewitness's evidence, the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the Qualis car. Hence, the Tribunal's finding in this regard is confirmed.

7. Though the claimants claimed Rs. 25,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs. 9,000/-. The same is confirmed.

8. However, no future prospects has been added. The age of the deceased as per Ex. P.3-Postmortem certificate is "40 years". As per the Constitution Bench's judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 40% has to be added towards future prospects. After adding 40% towards future prospects the monthly income would be at Rs. 12,600/- (Rs. 9000/-+ 40% of Rs. 9000/-)

9. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses as the size of the family is 4. The same is confirmed. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family would be at Rs. 9,450/- (Rs. 12,600/- (-) 1/4th of Rs. 12,600/-).

10. Since the age of the deceased is "40 years", as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others .Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), the appropriate multiplier is "15". Therefore, the loss of income would be at Rs. 17,01,000/- (Rs. 9,450/- x 12 x 15).

11.