Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.04.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.307 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sessions Court), Krishnagiri.) In an accident which occurred on 21.08.1998, about 10.00 a.m., on cauvery road, near Karungalpalayam Co-operative Society Turmeric Godown, the deceased succumbed to injuries. He was rushed to a nearby hospital, but he was declared dead. The legal representatives of the deceased Govindaraj claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. 2. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence found that the driver of the bus was negligent and awarded compensation of Rs.10,33,500/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, though the monthly income said to have drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as per Ex.P7-Salary Certificate was only Rs.5,892/-. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident and in the normal course, he would have been promoted to a higher post and consequent to pay revision, he would have certainly drawn a higher salary. Placing reliance on the decisions reported in 2005 ACJ 61 (National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. P. Subhashini Perumal and others) and 2005 ACJ 1017 (Prakashwati and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the future prospects of promotion and the increase in income can always be considered for the purpose of awarding just compensation. 5. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased. Respondents 2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased and it is evident from Ex.A6, that they were studying at the time of accident. The fifth respondent died during the pendency of the claim petition. The first respondent has deposed that the deceased was working as a Head Constable and earning Rs.5,892/- per month. It is evident from Ex.A7, Salary Certificate given by the District Superintendent of Police, Erode that if the deceased had been alive on 21.03.2001, he would have earned Rs.7,990/- per month. The first respondent has deposed that the deceased was working as a Head Constable and earning Rs.5,892/- per month. It is evident from Ex.A7, Salary Certificate given by the District Superintendent of Police, Erode that if the deceased had been alive on 21.03.2001, he would have earned Rs.7,990/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased, it could be presumed that he would have been promoted later on even as Sub-Inspector of Police and would have earned a higher salary. 6. Placing reliance on the decisions reported in 2001 ACJ 408 (Raj Bahadur and others vs. Shyam Bai and others) and 1999 ACJ 1400 (Donat Louis Machado and others vs. L.Ravindra and others), the Tribunal has determined the average income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/-, adopted 16' as multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.10,24,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. 7. In a decision reported in 2004 ACJ 2099 , appellants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of their father. Taking into account the average income of the deceased and the remaining years of service, the future prospects of the Government Servant and the expected increase of salary every year, the High Court estimated the average income and awarded compensation. The above decisions are based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav and others, reported in 1996 ACJ 581, in which it is held as follows: "while deciding loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the High Court and the Tribunal are required to take into consideration the future prospects in life and the career of the deceased. To increase the minimum wages payable to the workers, notification has to be issued by the Government from time to time. " In the above case, the appellant has sought compensation for the death of their father, due to road accident. The income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.48,000/- per annum and the compensation was awarded on that basis. The High Court while deciding the appeal held that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects in life and career of the deceased. Taking into account the number of years of remaining service, the High Court estimated the average income at Rs.72,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses enhanced the compensation. 8. The High Court while deciding the appeal held that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects in life and career of the deceased. Taking into account the number of years of remaining service, the High Court estimated the average income at Rs.72,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses enhanced the compensation. 8. Similar view has been taken in a decision reported in 2005 ACJ 1017 . In this case also, the principles laid down in the decision reported in 1996 ACJ 581 (Sarala Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav and others) was followed and the compensation was enhanced. 9. In the case on hand, the deceased was working as a Head Constable and he was drawing Rs.5,892/- as monthly salary, as per Ex.A7-Salary Certificate. In due course, there is possibility of future promotion and increase in the salary. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the above principles, while determining the income and awarded compensation. The determination of the income of the deceased is justified and is also supported with judicial principles. 10. The award of Rs.50,000/- for consortium to the first respondent/claimant is on the higher side and therefore, the same is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. The deceased has left behind his wife and three minor children. The children have lost their father at a very young age and his love and affection. Therefore, respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, towards loss of love and affection; altogether Rs.30,000/- is awarded under this head. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed, subject to the modifications as indicated above. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.