Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007 made in MCOP No.337 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 14.04.2006 at about 12.30 midnight, the deceased Karuppanna Gounder, along with one Marappan, were proceeding by a bullock cart in the Gobi to Sathi Road. When they were nearing Moolavaikkal Gurukulam School, i.e. near the house of one Narayanaswamy Gounder from east to west direction, a lorry bearing Registration No.TNQ 3326 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed at the backside of the bullock cart. Due to the accident both the deceased as well as the other person were thrown out from the bullock cart and the left front wheel of the lorry ran over on the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The The claimants are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-before the Tribunal. The lorry was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver or not? b) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount payable and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,14,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and stated that 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 respondents 1 to 3 / claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 / claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is therefore submitted that the order passed of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On behalf of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked. P.W.1 is the third respondent / son of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Chandran. P.W.3 is one Selvam Periaswamy. P.W.4 is one Ponnuswamy. P.W.5 is one Karuppayal. P.W.6 is one Chinnaswamy. The list of exhibits are as under:- Ex.P1-First Information Report Ex.P2-Post Mortem Report Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.P4-Rough Sketch Ex.P5-Charge Sheet Ex.P6-Death Certificate Ex.P7-Legal Heir Certificate Ex.P8 and Ex.P9-Lease receipts Ex.P10-Lease Deed Ex.R1-Post Mortem Report Ex.R2-Inquest Report After considering these 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 lorry driver. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,14,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 7,04,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/-Loss of love and affection 5,000/- Total... 7,14,000/-============== P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. He has given oral evidence that his father, the deceased, was deriving income from agriculture as well as selling milk and plantain. He claimed that his father was earning Rs.15,000/-per month. P.W.4 is one Ponnuswamy. In his evidence, he stated that the deceased had taken a land on lease, which was owned by Ponmalai Andavar Koil to the extent of 3.75 acres and deriving income from the said land. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the lease receipts. Further, P.W.5 is one Karuppayal. In his evidence, he stated that the deceased was a lessee and cultivating 2 acres of land. P.W.6 is one Chinnaswamy. He also stated in his evidence that the deceased was deriving income by selling plantain. But no proper materials or evidence filed to prove that the deceased was actually earning Rs.15,000/-. Further, P.W.5 is one Karuppayal. In his evidence, he stated that the deceased was a lessee and cultivating 2 acres of land. P.W.6 is one Chinnaswamy. He also stated in his evidence that the deceased was deriving income by selling plantain. But no proper materials or evidence filed to prove that the deceased was actually earning Rs.15,000/-. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and calculated the annual income at Rs.96,000/-(Rs.8,000/- x 12). After deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e. Rs.32,000/-, the balance sum of Rs.64,000/-has been taken as the contribution of the deceased to the family. The age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of accident. Ex.R1 is the Post Mortem Report and Ex.R2 is the Inquest Report. After considering the age of the deceased and also the above evidence, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 11 and determined the loss of income at Rs.7,04,000/-(Rs.64,000/- x 11). Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that as per the Post Mortem Report-Ex.R1, the age of the deceased was 57 years at the time of accident, but the Tribunal disregarded the fact and fixed the age of the deceased as 55 years at the time of accident. In view of the evidence available on record, the correct multiplier that should be adopted in this case is 8 as the age of the deceased was 57 years. If the correct multiplier of 8 is adopted, the loss of income works out to Rs.5,12,000/-(Rs.8,000/-x 12 x 8 x 2/3). Accordingly, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs.7,04,000/- is modified to Rs.5,12,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection which is low and meagre. Taking into consideration the age of the wife, daughter and son of the deceased, I feel that it would be appropriate and reasonable to award a further sum of Rs.25,000/-towards this head. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection at Rs.5,000/- is modified to Rs.30,000/-. The details of the modified compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 5,12,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Loss of love and affection 30,000/- Total... Accordingly, the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection at Rs.5,000/- is modified to Rs.30,000/-. The details of the modified compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 5,12,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Loss of love and affection 30,000/- Total... 5,47,000/- ============== Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.5,47,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.7,04,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. 7. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified compensation of Rs.5,47,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.