JUDGMENT Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. Aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts briefly are : One Guna Reddiar, the husband, of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, while he was travelling in a cycle in the over-bridge at Tambaram on 10-10-1980, was crushed to death by a bus bearing Registration No. T.M.W. 8391 belonging to the respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.O.P. No. 357 of 1980 Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Additional Subordinate Judge) Chengalpattu, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Regarding the death of another person, who was also seated in the same cycle, the claimant Indraniammal, has preferred M.O.P. No. 154 of 1981 before the same Court claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The respondent contested the claim alleging that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but that the accident occurred when the deceased tried to suddenly cross the road. The claim was also excessive. 4. Both the petitions were clubbed together and a common enquiry was held. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant examined herself as PW 1 and also examined PWs. 2 to 4. Exts. P-1 to P-10 were marked on their side. On behalf of the respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. B-1 was marked. 5. On the above material, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and assessed the compensation in respect of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- and passed an Award in favour of the appellants, apportioning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the first appellant and a sum of Rs. 5000/- each to appellants 2 and 3. Contending that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. Thiru A.N. Viswanatha Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted one third of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and that the Tribunal erred in fixing too low an amount, viz., Rs. Contending that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. Thiru A.N. Viswanatha Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted one third of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and that the Tribunal erred in fixing too low an amount, viz., Rs. 100/- as the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family and also in having made a second deduction of 1/6th towards lump payment. Learned Counsel also contended that the first appellant ought to have been awarded with a separate amount towards loss of consortium. 7. Per Contra, Thiru K.S. Ahamed, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that in the absence of any material to show what was the exact income of the deceased, was the Tribunal was justified in making its own inference and a sum of Rs. 100/- as the probable contribution of the deceased to his family was a very reasonable amount in view of the nature of the business that the deceased was said to have been doing; and particularly when the multiplier adopted is on the higher side. Learned Counsel also contended that there was no evidence that the deceased was aged only 40 and the probable life-span of the people in India should he only 57, as has been followed by this Court in certain decisions. Both the counsel referred to a number of decisions on these aspects. 8. Exts. A-1 to A-6 are the licenses issued by the Corporation of Madras, which show that the deceased was doing business in the sale of flowers. Learned Counsel for the respondent would urge that there was no indication that the deceased had any shop of his own in which he was doing this flower business and it could very well be that the deceased was only a platform vendor of flowers. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, would refer to the address given in Exts. A-1 to A-6, which, according to the learned Counsel, would indicate that the appellant had a shop of his own in which he was doing flower business. Exts. A-1 to A-6 only give the residential address of the deceased as 94, N. A. Road. There is no indication in Exts. A-1 to A-6, which, according to the learned Counsel, would indicate that the appellant had a shop of his own in which he was doing flower business. Exts. A-1 to A-6 only give the residential address of the deceased as 94, N. A. Road. There is no indication in Exts. A-1 to A-6 that this address does not refer to the residence of the deceased, but refers to the shop wherein the deceased was having his business. The Tribunal found that the case of the appellants that the deceased was contributing Rs. 20/- per day could not by accepted and that the deceased, could have; at the most, earned Rs. 7/- or Rs 8/- per day. The Tribunal then made a deduction of 1/3rd and arrived at the figure Rs. 100/- as the probable contribution of the deceased to his family. Even if 1/3rd is deducted from out of the probable earning of Rs. 7/- or Rs. 8/- per day, the contribution to the family would still be something higher than Rs. 100/-. I, therefore, hold that a sum of Rs. 150/- would be taken as the possible contribution of the deceased to his family. 9. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decisions reported in Kunchidapatham v. Dhanalakshmi Bus Service 1988 ILW 46 and J. Vadivelu Mrs. Sivapackiam and three Ors. 1986 TNLJ 322 that the probable life-span in India should be taken only at 57 and lesser multiplier, therefore, should be adopted, in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein the life span has been taken to be higher and consequently higher multiplier, I feel that adopting multiplier of 20 in this case, wherein the deceased was aged only 40 is a reasonable multiplier.-Reference need be made only to Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta 1977 ACJ 134. I, therefore, take Rs. 150/- as the multiplicant as the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family and 20 as the multiplier. The compensation works out to Rs. 36,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 6000/- is deducted towards lump payment, uncertainties of life and other imponderable factors. It would, therefore, be reasonable to fix compensation at Rs. 30,000/-. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs. 20,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. 36,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 6000/- is deducted towards lump payment, uncertainties of life and other imponderable factors. It would, therefore, be reasonable to fix compensation at Rs. 30,000/-. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs. 20,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. The first appellant, who is the widow of the deceased, would be entitled to Rs. 6000/- out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the appellants 2 and 3, who are the married daughters, would each be entitled to Rs. 2000/- out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Interest at 9% p.a., shall be payable on the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of the filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal till the date of deposit. No costs.