Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2006 made in MACTOP No.2305 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge), Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 05.04.2004 at about 17.45 hours, one Rajendra Singh was travelling as a pillion rider in a Motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-22-J-3929 from Pallavaram to Pozhichalur. When the said Motor cycle was nearing the junction of Pallavaran Chandy Road, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J-1656 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, the pillion rider had sustained fatal injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted to a private hospital viz., Lakshmi Nursing Home, Pallavaram, Chennai, and during his treatment, he died. The claimants are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased Rajendra Singh. They claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-as compensation before the Tribunal. The lorry was insured with the appellant. The Insurance Company resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-J-1656. Further it was contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is wrong and the amount awarded by it is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was also marked to support their claim. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased. P.W.3 is the employer of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the rough sketch. Ex.P3 is the charge sheet. Ex.P4 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex.P5 is the Legal heir certificate. Ex.P6 is the driving licence of PW2. Ex.P7 is the service certificate of the deceased. PWs.1 and 2 deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Ex.P1, First Information Report also says that the lorry driver has caused the accident. PW2 is the rider of the motor cycle and son of the deceased. He deposed that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.153 of 2004 of Pallavaram Police Station for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. His statement was corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1, FIR. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and hence, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,60,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income - Rs.8,31,600/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium & - Rs. 15,000/- loss of love and affection & Loss of expectation of life - Rs. 8,400/- Total... Rs. 8,60,000/- ============= The deceased was 51 years at the time of the accident. He is the employee of the Alstom Limited, which is now known as Ariva TND Limited. PW3 is the Accountant in the said company. 15,000/- loss of love and affection & Loss of expectation of life - Rs. 8,400/- Total... Rs. 8,60,000/- ============= The deceased was 51 years at the time of the accident. He is the employee of the Alstom Limited, which is now known as Ariva TND Limited. PW3 is the Accountant in the said company. In his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was an operator in the said company. Ex.P7 is the salary certificate given by the company stating that the deceaseds salary was Rs.10,585/-. PW3 has also stated in his evidence that the salary of the deceased was Rs.10,5890. Further he has stated in his evidence that the deceased would have retired within seven years if he would not have died and there is possibility of increasing his remuneration from 10% to 15%. Taking into consideration the above evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- and has also fixed the annual income at Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.10,500 x 12). The said salary was the gross salary and hence, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have paid income tax on the said amount and fixed the amount of tax liability at 10%. Hence the same was deducted and determined the annual loss of income at Rs.1,13,400/- (Rs.1,26,000-12600). Out of the said amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the amount viz., 37,800/-towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the balance amount of Rs.75,600/-was taken as the amount that has been contributed to his family. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier 11 and determined the loss of income at Rs.8,31,600/-(Rs.75600 x 11). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal was wrong in adopting the multiplier viz., considering the retirement age of the deceased. The Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly salary, but not adopted the correct multiplier while calculating the loss of income after his retirement. In such circumstances, the loss of income for first seven years would be Rs.5,29,200/-( Rs.75,600 x 7). After retirement, his annual contribution to the family would be 50% i.e. Rs.37,800/-(Rs.75,600x50/100). The correct multiplier adopted should be 4. Then the loss of income would be Rs.1,51,200/-( Rs.37,800 x 4). Therefore, the amount awarded towards loss of income is modified to Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.5,29,200 + 1,51,200) rounded to Rs.6,80,000/-as against Rs.8,31,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. After retirement, his annual contribution to the family would be 50% i.e. Rs.37,800/-(Rs.75,600x50/100). The correct multiplier adopted should be 4. Then the loss of income would be Rs.1,51,200/-( Rs.37,800 x 4). Therefore, the amount awarded towards loss of income is modified to Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.5,29,200 + 1,51,200) rounded to Rs.6,80,000/-as against Rs.8,31,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the amount of Rs.15,000/-awarded towards loss of consortium and love and affection is very meagre and separate amounts would be awarded. The age of the widow is 43 years at the time of the accident. In such circumstances, it would be very reasonable and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium. The claimants are the wife, son and daughter. Taking into consideration of the age of the widow as well as the son and daughter, it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. Hence, it would be appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is at 7.5%, which also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The modified amounts are as under:- Loss of income : Rs.6,80,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 25,000/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs .7,40,000/- 6. In these circumstances, the claimants are entitled to the modified award amount of Rs.7,40,000/- as stated above instead of Rs.8,60,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. It is stated that the appellant-Insurance company has already deposited the entire award amount on 05.07.2007. Therefore, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their entire share. The appellant-Insurance company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amount. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.