Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) MARUDHU pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the award of Rs. 3,35,800 payable to the claimants/ respondents herein, for the death of the deceased, this appeal has been filed before this court, mainly on the ground of quantum. ( 2 ) THE claimant No. 1 is the widow, claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are minor daughters and claimant Nos. 5 and 6 are parents of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE deceased Raman alias Ramachandran was working as a generator operator and electrician in Snahavalli Mills. On 11. 4. 1993, he was proceeding to the mill on his TVS Champ Moped. While so, the bus bearing the registration No. TML 2479 belonging to the appellant Corporation, which was coming from the opposite direction, attempted to overtake a private bus going ahead. In that process, the bus came to the wrong side and hit against the moped. The right front wheel of the bus ran over the deceased Raman. Because of the impact, he sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to the same. ( 4 ) ON the basis of these factual details, the claimants filed a petition before the claims Tribunal claiming compensation of rs. 7,00,000 in respect of the death of the deceased due to negligent driving of the bus driver. ( 5 ) THE said claim was resisted by the appellant Corporation contending, inter alia, that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, that at the time of the accident, a cyclist was proceeding in front of the bus and at that time, the deceased, who was coming on the moped, was talking with the cyclist and that on seeing the bus, the deceased jumped out of the vehicle and thereby, the accident had taken place and hence, the driver of the bus was not at fault in having caused the accident. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal, after enquiry, held that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimants would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 3,35,800 on different heads. This award is the subject-matter of challenge before this court in this appeal filed by the appellant Corporation. ( 7 ) MR. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal, after enquiry, held that the driver of the bus was negligent and the claimants would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 3,35,800 on different heads. This award is the subject-matter of challenge before this court in this appeal filed by the appellant Corporation. ( 7 ) MR. Pandi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, though initially argued on the aspect of the negligence, has ultimately, confined himself to the aspect of quantum. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to him, the Tribunal fixed the multiplier at 26 and 28 for the earning of the deceased from Snahavalli Mills and the private contract work respectively, on the basis of longevity theory, which is quite wrong. It is also submitted that the award of Rs. 3,00,800 under the head of loss of earning is very much on the higher side, especially, when it has fixed the monthly contribution only at Rs. 1,400. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents would submit that the calculation made by the Tribunal is correct and the quantum fixed is reasonable and appropriate. ( 10 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and I have scrutinised the records and the materials available therein. ( 11 ) AS regards negligence, as indicated earlier, there is no serious challenge. From a perusal of evidence of PW 2 and other records, it is clear that the driver of the bus was negligent. ( 12 ) BUT, as far as the quantum is concerned, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the adoption of two multipliers in respect of the incomes from two different sources, that too, on the basis of longevity theory is quite wrong. ( 13 ) IT is now settled law that instead of longevity theory, it would be appropriate to employ the multiplier theory on the basis of annual dependency in the light of the gross income. If that is the criterion, then the award is liable to be suitably modified. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the witnesses produced by the claimants, the deceased was working as a generator operator in Snahavalli Mills as well as he was doing the private contract work and from both these works, he derived income. If that is the criterion, then the award is liable to be suitably modified. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the witnesses produced by the claimants, the deceased was working as a generator operator in Snahavalli Mills as well as he was doing the private contract work and from both these works, he derived income. But, instead of assessing the gross income from both these works, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 26 in respect of the income obtained from Snahavalli Mills and adopted the multiplier of 28 in respect of the income that he was getting from the private contract work. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the Tribunal, the deceased would have given Rs. 800 per month to the family from the monthly income of rs. 1,200 which he was getting from the mills and he would have given Rs. 600 per month out of Rs. 1,000 that he would get from the private contract work. So, the Tribunal calculated Rs. 1,400 as the monthly dependency. Instead of calculating the annual dependency and employing proper multiplier, the Tribunal multiplied two different figures with two different multipliers. This is not proper. ( 16 ) THOUGH PW 3 would say that he was working as an operator in the mill for a number of years, he would admit that he was working as a daily wage earner. The other witnesses would also speak to the fact that he was doing private contract work. It cannot be said that he used to get fixed regular income. ( 17 ) UNDER these circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs. 2,000. From this, if 1/3rd is deducted towards his own personal expenses, the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family would come to rs. 1,300. Then, the annual dependency would work out to Rs. 15,600. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years. Therefore, the proper multiplier in this case would be 18. Thus calculated, the total amount under the head loss of income (Rs. 1,300 x 12 x 18) comes to Rs. 2,80,800. In addition to that, Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs. 30,000 towards loss of love and affection to the three children at the rate of Rs. 10,000 each and Rs. 10,000 towards loss of companionship to the parents could be awarded. 1,300 x 12 x 18) comes to Rs. 2,80,800. In addition to that, Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs. 30,000 towards loss of love and affection to the three children at the rate of Rs. 10,000 each and Rs. 10,000 towards loss of companionship to the parents could be awarded. Thus, the total compensation conies to rs. 3,35,800. ( 18 ) THUS, the figure arrived at on the basis of multiplier theory would be the same as arrived at by the Tribunal. Therefore, except the modification in the calculation and apportionment, I do not want to disturb the final figure, since both the figures are the same. ( 19 ) HOWEVER, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is 15 per cent, which, in my view, is high. Therefore, instead of 15 per cent, the appellant Corporation is directed to pay the said amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of payment. ( 20 ) IN other respects, the judgment of the Tribunal is confirmed. ( 21 ) WITH the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C. M. P. Nos. 15008 and 15009 of 1996 are closed. Orders accordingly.