Judgment :- Aggrieved over the insufficient quantum, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement. The deceased in this case is a police constable. The claimants are the wife, son and the daughter respectively. On 24.6.1984 at about 6.15 p.m. the deceased Munirathinam and his colleague M. Subramanian, P.C. No. 790 were going on cycles for rounds on Thiruvalam Vinnampalli Road. The bus belonging to the respondents - Corporation was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came opposite to them and the right front wheel of the bus hit against the said Munirathinam and thrown him from his cycle. He sustained serious injury on the head. He was immediately taken into the Government Hospital, Vellore, but on the way he died. 2. The claimants filed a petition seeking for the award for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.I, the first claimant and P.W.2 the eye-witness, the colleague of the deceased were examined. On behalf of the respondents - Corporation R.W.I driver was examined. P.W.2 would narrate about the incident. R.W.I would state that he was not negligent. On behalf of the claimants Ex. P.1, the F.I.R. which was registered against the driver and Ex. P.2, the salary certificate were marked. Having considered the materials placed by the parties, the Tribunal concluded that the driver was negligent and the claimants were entitled to the compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. According to Tribunal, though the loss of dependency was fixed at Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 9,000/- for lumpsum payment was deducted out of the said sum. The Tribunal further fixed Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 500/-towards damages to cycle and Rs. 3,500/-towards loss of love and affection for the children. The total calculation would work out to Rs. 60,000/-. 3. I heard for the counsel for the appellants and for the respondent. On perusal of the records and judgment, I am of the view, the above said conclusion was not on the basis of correct assessment. According to P.W.I and P.W.2 and the Ex. P.2, salary certificate, the deceased used to get Rs. 720/-per month. On that basis, the monthly dependency was fixed as Rs. 500/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 48 years, multiplier of 10 was adopted the amount after multiplication come about Rs. 60,000/-. According to P.W.I and P.W.2 and the Ex. P.2, salary certificate, the deceased used to get Rs. 720/-per month. On that basis, the monthly dependency was fixed as Rs. 500/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 48 years, multiplier of 10 was adopted the amount after multiplication come about Rs. 60,000/-. When Multiplier Theory is adopted after deducting the amount towards personal expenses and fixed monthly dependency as Rs. 500/-, there is no necessity for further deduction towards the lumpsum payment. However, having regard to the material available through P.W.1, and P.W.2 that the deceased was to be in 23 years of service as Constable and his name was in the promotion list. The future prospects also should be taken into consideration for arising the dependency. 4. In the light of the above consideration, I deem it fit to fix the monthly dependency as Rs. 700/-. If multiplier of 10 years is adopted, total amount towards loss of income and loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 84,000/-towards loss of consortium, in my view, the wife is entitled to about Rs. 10,000/-. In addition to this, the amount of Rs. 3,500/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 500/- towards damages to cycle as ordered by the Tribunal could be added to this amount. The total calculation would come to Rs. 98,000/-. Accordingly, the award by the Tribunal is modified as towards loss of income and loss of dependency Rs. 84,000/-, loss of consortium to the 1st claimant Rs. 10,000/-, towards damages to cycle Rs. 500/- and towards loss of love and affection to the children claimants Rs. 3,500/-totalling to Rs. 98,000/-. 5. The order of the Tribunal is modified as above and in other respects, the order of the Tribunal is sustained.