JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 09.03.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No. 213 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court), Vellore @ Ranipet.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company, challenging the impugned award dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Vellore at Ranipet in M.C.O.P. No. of 213 of 2019.

2. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. They have not questioned the liability to pay compensation.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the respondents/claimants, the compensation at Rs.58,58,840/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Forty only) together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:

4. The deceased, Surendrakumar was an Executive at Mahindra Finance, Mumbai and was aged 29 years at the time of the accident. In the claim petition, the respondents/claimants, who are the dependants, have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.23,740/- per month, for which, they have produced salary certificate of the deceased, which has been marked as Ex.P16, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has accepted the same and has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.23,740/-(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty only).

5. However, the Tribunal has erroneously adopted 50% towards loss of future prospects to the respondents/claimants. The deceased was in probation period. Therefore the Tribunal ought not to have awarded 50% towards future prospects. As per the settled law, the respondents/claimants are entitled only to 40% towards loss of future prospects. Therefore, the same is modified by this Court to 40%, instead of 50%, erroneously awarded by the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal has also erroneously not deducted any amount towards Income Tax. Since the annual income assessed by the Tribunal for the deceased is more than Rs.2,50,000/-, in accordance with law, this Court deducts 5% towards Income Tax, i..e, Rs.7432/-.

7. The Tribunal has also erroneously deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the father of the deceased viz., the fourth respondent/claimant cannot be treated as a dependant of the deceased, the correct deduction ought to have been awarded is only 1/3rd. Accordingly, this Court modifies the same to 1/3rd instead of 1/4th, erroneously deducted by the Tribunal.

Therefore, the loss of dependency is arrived as follows :

Rs.23740 (monthly income) + 40% towards future prospects (9496) = Rs.33236 x 12 = Rs.3,98,832 (annual income)

upto Rs.2,50,000/-, no tax. For balance Rs.1,48,832/- 5% income tax i.e., as per slab Rs.7,432/-) Therefore, annual income is Rs.3,98,832 –Rs.7432 = Rs.3,91,400/-

Rs.3,91,400 - 1/3rd towards personal expenses (Rs.1,30,467) = Rs.2, 60,933 x 17 (multiplier) = Rs.44,35,867.00

8. The Tribunal has also erroneously awarded compensation towards maintenance for minor child at Rs.2,00,000/-, who is the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant, who is not legally entitled and the same will have to be set aside by this Court. Accordingly, compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards maintenance for the minor child/2nd respondent at Rs.2,00,000/- is set aside by this Court.

9. Insofar