Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The respondents, owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, in M.C.O.P. No. 1045 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondents herein/claimants filed the said O.P., for the death of one S.R. Rajalinga Raja in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 26.9.1991 at Palayamkottai in which the vehicle bearing registration No. T.N.K. 1493 belonging to the first appellant herein, insured with the second appellant herein was involved. Altogether, the claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- under various heads. By order dated 27.11.1992 the Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the first appellant herein passed an award for Rs. 4.89,000/- 2. The Insurance Company and the insured filed the present appeal questioning the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Since the quantum alone is being challenged, we are not discussing the facts leading to the negligence and the manner of the accident. 3. In order to prove the case of the claimants, second claimant, namely, Ramasubramania Raja was examined as P.W. 1. He is none else than the son of the deceased Rajalinga Raja. First claimant is wife and claimants 2 to 4 are children of the deceased Rajalinga Raja. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that his father was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and he was looking after agricultural operations, rice mill and also doing business in Real Estate and that altogether, the deceased was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month. In order to substantiate his claim, Exs. P-10 to P-27 were marked. Ex. P-5 discloses that the deceased was owning a motor cycle an d Ex. P-6 shows that he was given gun licence. Exs. P-7 to P-9 show that the deceased was having a Tractor, Trailer and a Telephone in his name. Exs. P-5 to P-8 are photostat copies and Ex. P-9 is receipt showing the payment of telephone charges. Ex. P-13 shows payment of agricultural income-tax by the deceased Rajalinga Raja. Exs. P-15 and P-16 are kist receipts insured in favour of the deceased. In order to prove that the deceased was running a rice-mill, Ex. P-11 has been marked. However, a perusal of Ex. P-9 is receipt showing the payment of telephone charges. Ex. P-13 shows payment of agricultural income-tax by the deceased Rajalinga Raja. Exs. P-15 and P-16 are kist receipts insured in favour of the deceased. In order to prove that the deceased was running a rice-mill, Ex. P-11 has been marked. However, a perusal of Ex. P-11 shows that the licence stands in the name of second claimant. Ex. P-12 series show that the deceased was one of the partners in Ramaraj Surgical Cotton Mill and Rajapalayam Mill. With regard to business in Real Estate, Exs. P-17 to P-22 were pressed into service. The said documents show that the lands mentioned therein have been purchased in the name of Rajalinga Raja, the deceased. Likewise, Exs. P-23 to P-27 show house-plots have been sold by Rajalinga Raja to various persons. Exs. P-17 to P-27 are the photostat copies of the said documents. With these documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence of P.W. 1 (second claimant), the Tribunal arrived a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. 4. With regard to age, on the basis of post-mortem certificate, viz., Ex. P-2, the court below has fixed his age as 63. In this regard, it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that his family members have lived up-to 80 years and the deceased was also hale and healthy and he would have lived up-to 70 years had he not been involved in the unfortunate accident. On the above basis, the court below adopted 7 years multiplier and fixed a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- towards total pecuniary loss. The court below has deducted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and another Rs. 1,00,000/-towards uncertainty of life and arrived a figure of Rs. 4,30,000/- towards loss of income to the claimants. After adding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium for first claimant and loss of love and affection for claimants 2 to 4, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering of the claimants, Rs. 500/- towards transport charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards nutritious food, Rs. 1,000/-towards medical expenses and Rs. 500/- towards payments to a helper when the deceased was in the hospital, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 4,89,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition in favour of the claimants. 5. Mr. 500/- towards transport charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards nutritious food, Rs. 1,000/-towards medical expenses and Rs. 500/- towards payments to a helper when the deceased was in the hospital, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 4,89,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition in favour of the claimants. 5. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that (1) there is no basis for arriving a figure of Rs. 7,500/- as monthly income of the deceased; (2) even though the deceased owned properties and doing business, there is no positive proof that he was getting income from and out of business and agriculture; (3) the Tribunal having found that the deceased was aged 63 years, erred in adopting 7 year multiplier. 6. On the other hand, Mr. P. Subramani, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that in the light of the properties and business left by the deceased, the award of the Tribunal is very low and after pointing out his cross-objection, prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. First we have to find out the contribution of the deceased at the time of his death, to his family. It is true that the documents Exs. P-6 to P-8 and P-13 show that he was owning a large extent of land. However, the fact remains that the claimants have not filed any account book to show that the deceased was getting so much of amount from the agricultural lands. In the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the actual income derived from the land after meeting necessary expenses, it is not possible to hold that he was getting sizable income from and out of agricultural lands. Like-wise, even though Ex. P-11 shows that the deceased was one of the partners in the rice mill, there is no acceptable evidence by way of account books to show that he was getting regular income from the rice mill. Further, Exs. P-17 to P-12 sale deeds relating to the period between 14.4.1963 and 18.8.1996 at best would only show that the deceased purchased different lands during the said period. Then, even according to the learned counsel for respondents, these lands are different from the properties covered under Exs. P-23 to P-27 (which are of June, 1985). While so, Ex. Further, Exs. P-17 to P-12 sale deeds relating to the period between 14.4.1963 and 18.8.1996 at best would only show that the deceased purchased different lands during the said period. Then, even according to the learned counsel for respondents, these lands are different from the properties covered under Exs. P-23 to P-27 (which are of June, 1985). While so, Ex. P-10 series (regarding permission granted by the Municipality for the deceased plotting out house-sites) together with Exs. P-23 to P-27, per se, cannot necessarily go to prove that the deceased was carrying on Real Estate business and the deceased was thereby getting any such business income. Here also, we must point out that apart from the above documents, account books relating to the alleged business of Real Estate have not been filed before the Tribunal. If the account books for the above business had been filed before the court below, the actual income of the deceased therefrom could be ascertained. Admittedly, the deceased had not been assessed to income tax and no assessment order has been filed by the claimants. In the absence of assessment or payment of income-tax or returns or necessary account books, it is not safe to fix a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased. The submission of Mr. K.S. Narasimhan that the fixation of Rs. 7,500/- per month as probable monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal is unreasonable and without any basis is well-founded. As pointed out by us, mere placing materials regarding the ownership of some lands and involvement in some business may not be sufficient to hold that he was getting sizable income. The proper documents would be the account books and returns filed to the Income-tax Department or assessments made thereon. Hence, the figure arrived by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 7,500/- as monthly income of the deceased cannot be sustained. In this aspect, Mr. K.S. Narasimhan has also brought to our notice a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair (1970 A.C.J. 110 = 83 L.W. 46 S.N.). He has very much relied on paragraph 11 in that judgment which reads as follows:— “The mode and manner of ascertainment of damages in fatal accidents cases came up for consideration in Nance v. British ColumbiaElectric Rly. Co. Ltd., (1951), A.C.P. 60). He has very much relied on paragraph 11 in that judgment which reads as follows:— “The mode and manner of ascertainment of damages in fatal accidents cases came up for consideration in Nance v. British ColumbiaElectric Rly. Co. Ltd., (1951), A.C.P. 60). In that case Viscount Simon, formulated the following tests for ascertaining the damages.- (1) First estimate what was the deceased mans expectation of life if he had not been killed when he was and (2) what sums during those years, he would have probably applied to the support of the defendant. In fixing the expectation of life of the deceased regard must be had not only to his age and bodily health but premature termination of his life by a later accident. In estimating future provision for his dependant the amounts he usually applied in this way before his death are obviously relevant, and often the best evidence available though not conclusive, since if he had survived, his means might have expanded or shrunk, and his liberality might have grown or wilted. After making the calculations on the basis of the two tests, his Lordship observed that deduction must further be made for the benefit accuring to the dependant from the acceleration of his interest in his estate and further allowance must be made for the possibility that the dependant himself might have died before he died.” In the light of the proposition enunciated by the Apex Court, due to the death, the claimants 2 to 4, namely, major sons have derived absolute title in the estate immediately. In other words, on the principle of acceleration to estate even some deduction must be made from the total compensation. Further, after analysing the earlier decisions in respect of fixation of just and proper compensation, the Supreme Court in the leading judgment reported in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (1994) A.C.J. 1) explained how a reasonable multiplier, multiplicand and a just and fair compensation has to be fixed in motor accident cases. The said decision has been followed and re-inforced in the latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others ( 1996(4) S.C.C. 479 ). 8. The said decision has been followed and re-inforced in the latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others ( 1996(4) S.C.C. 479 ). 8. In the light of the guidelines and the law made by the Apex Court, we fix proper and just compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. As pointed out by us earlier, in the absence of any proof regarding the actual income of the deceased with the assistance of account books and income-tax records, it is not possible to approve the amount of Rs. 7,500/- per month fixed by the Tribunal towards the monthly income of the deceased. Moreover, the income from the agricultural lands and the partnership business will continue to be available to the family (claimants) and the income from these sources cannot be taken absolutely as a basis to fix the compensation. As a matter of fact, claimants 2 to 4 who are major sons are no longer dependants and are capable of looking after the agriculture and the income from the partnership business. Even according to the evidence of P.W. 1, the deceased and other claimants were living as a joint family and the claimants 2 to 4 were not employed, but were assisting the father. It is also the evidence of P.W. 1 that after his death, the family have inherited the lands and were cultivating the same. Even the land belonging to their mother was also cultivated by P.W. 1 and the income is available for them. In these circumstances taking into consideration the entire evidence, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- would be reasonable contribution of the deceased to the claimants. Now, we have to fix reasonable multiplier. In this case, the court below has applied 7 years multiplier taking into the fact that the deceased was 63 years old at the time of the accident. The court below has also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 that their fore-fathers had lived up-to the age of 80 and the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he would have lived at least by another 7 years. No doubt, it is true that the courts have held that, the normal life span of an Indian citizen is 70 years. No doubt, it is true that the courts have held that, the normal life span of an Indian citizen is 70 years. However, that does not mean till the death one would earn as he was doing at the beginning. It is also improbable to hold that the deceased would earn in the same manner up-to the age of 70. Hence, we are unable to approve the multiplier of 7 selected by the Tribunal. Considering the oral evidence of P.W. 1 and of the fact that the deceased was 63 years old as seen from Ex. P-2, it is but proper that 5 years multiplier has to be applied in this case. In the above manner, if we calculate, the total pecuniary loss to the family would come Rs. 1,80,000/-. ( Rs. 3,000 1,80,000 = 5? 12?) Since we have adopted reasonable multiplier and multiplicand, there is no need to deduct any amount towards lump-sum payment for uncertainly of life. 9. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan also pointed out that the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards consortium for first claimant and loss of love and affection for claimants 2 to 4 which, according to him, is highly excessive. Even though the award of Rs. 30,000/- under this head appears to be excessive, the Tribunal has clubbed the two claims under this head, namely, consortium to the first claimant and loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 4 and in view of the said fact, it is not necessary to reduce the said amount. Another attack of the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding the award of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering of the claimants 1 to 4 for the death of the deceased. In this case, the accident had taken place on 26.9.91 at about 8-15 AM, and after prolonging for 3 days, that is on 29.9.91 at about 7-35 hours, the deceased died in the hospital. In view of the above circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on the said head, hence, we are not disturbing the same. In respect of the award under the other heads, the learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed. Hence, all those amounts have been confirmed. Net result, we arrive at a compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/- and the same may be rounded off to Rs. 2,40,000/-. 25,000/- on the said head, hence, we are not disturbing the same. In respect of the award under the other heads, the learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed. Hence, all those amounts have been confirmed. Net result, we arrive at a compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/- and the same may be rounded off to Rs. 2,40,000/-. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in the light of the evidence available on record, prayed for enhancement of compensation to the extent disallowed by the Tribunal. Relying on the documentary evidence, namely, Exs. P-10 to P-27, he submitted that the monthly income of the deceased could be fixed as Rs. 10,000/-. We have already discussed the above documents and after considering the same, we have given reason for fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-. The learned counsel for the cross-objectors has also pointed out that the Tribunal has deducted Rs. 2,00,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and for uncertainty of life. In as much by applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, we have fixed proper multiplier, multiplicand, we have not deducted any amount, hence, the said contention is unacceptable. He has also pointed out that some more amounts have to be granted towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 4 and pain and suffering to all the claimants. We are unable to agree with this contention, because though the award under the above said heads by the Tribunal are on the higher side, taking into consideration the entire facts, we have not disturbed the amounts fixed under the head of loss of consortium, love and affection, pain and suffering. We are satisfied that absolutely there are no merits in the contentions made by the cross-objector for enhancing the compensation. 10. Under these circumstances, we reduce the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal from Rs. 4,89,000/- to Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition. Out of this, we fix the share of the first claimant as Rs. 1,00,000/- and the claimants 2 to 4 are equally entitled to the remaining amount. Accordingly, the C.M.A., is allowed in part as indicated above and the cross-objection is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both.