Judgment : 1. Theowner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company are the appellants in the civil miscellaneous appeal arising out of MACTOP.No.582 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupur, filed by respondents 1 to 7 as heirs of one Somasundaram, who died in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the first appellant insured with the second appellant and driven by the eighth respondent herein. 2. On 16. 1992 at about 10 p.m. the deceased was travelling in a jeep belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu bearing registration No.TNR-7862, when the lorry bearing registration No.TAP-5499 belonging to the first appellant driven in a rash and negligent manner by the eighth respondent herein, dashed against the jeep near Odakadu Pirivu, as a result of which the jeep capsized causing the death of two persons including the deceased Somasundaram. The accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the eight respondent. The deceased was the sole bread-winner of his family consisting of his wife and six unmarried daughters. But for the accident the deceased would have been promoted as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and he would have retired on 37. 1995. They were entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000 as compensation under various heads. 3. The Insurance Company contested the claim along with the first appellant owner inter alia contending as follows: The claimants had to prove that the driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The accident occurred only due to the careless driving of the jeep by the deceased without following any traffic rules. The claimants had also to prove that the deceased had a valid licence to drive the jeep. The owner and the insurer of the jeep also were necessary parties. The other averments regarding the age, salary, position, etc. had to be proved by the claimants. The amounts claimed under the various heads were exorbitant and without any basis. The claimants had also to prove that they were the legal heirs of the deceased with proper heirship certificate. 4. The claimants have filed cross-objections asking for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Theconclusion reached by the tribunal with regard to the negligence of the eighth respondent/driver cannot at all be assailed. The claimants had also to prove that they were the legal heirs of the deceased with proper heirship certificate. 4. The claimants have filed cross-objections asking for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Theconclusion reached by the tribunal with regard to the negligence of the eighth respondent/driver cannot at all be assailed. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any material for taking a contrary view. The finding by the tribunal that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the first appellant by the eight respondent is therefore confirmed. 6. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Deputy Registrar in the Co-operative Department earning Rs.4,000 per month. This was supported by Ex.P-12 certificate showing the monthly income as Rs.3,998. The tribunal worked out the loss of earning taking Rs.4,000 as his monthly income, the annual income as Rs.48,000, multiplied it by three as he had only three years of service left, arrived at Rs.1,44,000, deducted 10% alone as his personal expenses in view of his large family, arrived at Rs.1,29,600 and added Rs.1,50,000 towards marriage expenses and towards loss of love and affection to all claimants plus a sum of Rs.20,000 towards loss of expectation of life. The total was arrived at Rs.2,89,600. 15% interest was awarded on this amount. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount arrived was beyond all proportion and that in any event, no amount was payable towards the marriage expenses of his daughters and that the tribunal has not worked out the compensation payable properly. 8. The deceased was earning Rs.3,998 at the time of his death. This is supported by Ex.P-12. The tribunal deducted only 10% towards his personal expenses instead of one third. In my view, one sixth of the salary could be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. That would be Rs.3,330. If we multiply it by 12, his annual contribution for maintenance of his family would have been Rs.39,960. If we multiply it by 3, the number of years of service left for the deceased, the total comes to Rs.1,19,880 and it can be assumed that after retirement, the deceased would have got some job and earned not less than Rs.1,000 per month, apart from his terminal benefits. If we multiply it by 3, the number of years of service left for the deceased, the total comes to Rs.1,19,880 and it can be assumed that after retirement, the deceased would have got some job and earned not less than Rs.1,000 per month, apart from his terminal benefits. The multiplier in the case of a person 55 years old is 8 and the multiplier now to be used is 5. So theadditional amount he would have contributed to his family on his retirement would come to Rs.60,000. To this we must add Rs.10,000 to the wife towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000 each to the daughters towards loss of love and affection of the father plus a sum of Rs.3,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000 towards transport. The deceased died after being admitted in the hospital on the next day or two days thereafter. He would have undergone pain and suffering for which a sum of Rs.5,000 has to be added. The total comes to Rs.2,28,880. The tribunal has awarded Rs.2,89,600 which is on the high side. It has awarded amounts towards marriage expenses, which cannot be supported. 9. Consequently, the civil miscellaneous appeal will stand allowed impart and the cross-objections are dismissed. The award of the tribunal is modified and instead of Rs.2,89,600 the claimants would be entitled to Rs.2,28,880. The tribunal has awarded 15% interest, which also cannot be sustained. The claimants would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum. There will be no order as to costs.