ORDER Respondents 1 to 3, who are the widow and children of Nookaraju (the deceased) who allegedly died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (the Act), seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the appellant. 2. After contest by the appellant, the Tribunal, by the award under appeal, awarded Rs.2,14,000 as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred this appeal. 3. The points for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant? (2) To what compensation, if any, are the respondents entitled to? 4.The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that in view of the evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to it. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 is that since the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash ad negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect needs no interference. POINT NO.1: 5. The accident occurred when the deceased was crossing the road. Ex. B-1 the sketch of scene of accident shows that the bus proceeded to a distance of 120 ft. after dashing the deceased on the middle of the road. If really R.W.1 the driver, was driving the bus carefully, he would have, on seeing the deceased crossing the road, applied brake and if really he was not rash and negligent and was driving the bus at a controllable speed, the bus would not have proceeded to 120 after dashing the deceased. Ex.B-1 sketch of the scene of accident which prima facie establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R.W.1, coupled with the evidence of P.W 2, Ex.A-1 (FIR) and Ex.A-4 charge sheet clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R.W.1. Therefore, I also hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R.W.1. Therefore, I also hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R.W.1. The point is answered accordingly. POINT NO.2: 5. The Tribunal on the basis that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,800/- per month fixed the contribution of the deceased to the respondents 1 to 3 at Rs.1,200/- per month. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that since there is no reliable evidence on record to show the income of the deceased, the Tribunal was in error infixing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- per month. I am unable to agree with the said contention. The deceased was aged around 38 years as disclosed from Ex.A-3 postmortem examination report. Either as a coolie or as mason, as contended by the respondents 1 to 3, the deceased would have easily earned Rs.50/-per day. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in fixing his earnings at Rs.1,800/- per month and his contribution to respondents 1 to 3 at Rs.1,200/- per month. In fact, the Tribunal took the multiplier in Bhagawan Das v. Mohd Arif for fixing the appropriate multiplier and taking the multiplier at ‘13.5’, it fixed the pecuniary damages at Rs.1,94,000/-. 7. As per Schedule-II of the Act, even assuming that the deceased was aged above 40 years, the multiplier would have been 15 So, the compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 3 would have come to a minimum of Rs.14,400/- x 15 = Rs.2, 16,000/- and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is far less than the said amount. 8. Since the Tribunal took the multiplier in Bhagawan Das case it should have granted non-pecuniary damages of a minimum Rs.15,000/- payable as per Y. Varalakshmi v. M. Nageswara Rad but that amount was not awarded. So, Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards transport charges and funeral expenses need no interference. 9. Loss of consortium of Rs.15,000/awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and so it needs no inference (sic. interference) and so I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. The point is answered accordingly. 10. In view of my findings on the points of consideration, I find no merits in this appeal and hence the appeals is dismissed. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, without costs.