Judgment :- P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30.04.2004 made in MCOP No.1253 of 2000 on the file of the II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 011. 1999 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased John Basha was proceeding in his TVS Suzuki motor bike bearing Registration No.TN 05 B 3251 towards Tiruttani. At that time, another TVS Suzuki bearing registration No.TN 09 J4761 driven by the second respondent, which came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased lost control, went off the road and dashed against the Palmyra tree and died on the spot. The claimants are the wife and daughters of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TVS Suzuki bearing registration No.TN 09 J4761? 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 held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 09 J4761 and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,91,060/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition, the details of which are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 15,61,560/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Loss of expectation of life Rs. 2,500/- Total... Rs. 15,91,060/- Aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification and that therefore, the award 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/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and the evidence on record and came to the right conclusion by awarding a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1-Summiya Sultana is the daughter of the deceased John Basha. PW2 is one Manickam, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. PW3 is one Krishnamurthy, who is the co-employee of the deceased working in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle Central, Chennai-34. Ex.P1 is the salary certificate. Ex.P2 is the first information report. Ex.P3 is the post-mortem report. Ex.P4 is the death certificate. Ex.P5 is the charge sheet. Ex.P6 is the driving licence. Ex.P7 is the RC Book. Ex.P8 is the copy of the policy. Ex.P9 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P10 is the salary certificate. Ex.P11 is the salary deduction details. 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 other TVS Suzuki bike bearing registration No.TN 09 J 4761 and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 6. At the time of accident, the deceased John Basha was aged about 52 years. He was employed as AEE/O&M/ESPL in the office of the Superintending Engineer/Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle Central, Chennai-34. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, has deposed that the second respondent has driven the bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. PW3, who is the co-employee, has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.17,745/-. Exs.A1 and A10 are the salary certificates. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, has deposed that the second respondent has driven the bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. PW3, who is the co-employee, has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.17,745/-. Exs.A1 and A10 are the salary certificates. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.17,745/-p.m. and arrived at the annual income at Rs.2,12,940/- (Rs.17,745/- x 12). Out of the said amount, after deducting 1/3 viz., Rs.70,980/- towards personal expenses, the balance sum of Rs.1,41,960/- (2,12,940.00 - Rs.70,980.00) was fixed as the deceaseds annual contribution to the family. After taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 52 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 11 and arrived at an amount of Rs.15,61,560/- (Rs.1,41,960 x 11) towards loss of income. But the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 10% amount towards tax payable by the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants has not seriously disputed the same. Considering the above facts, we feel that it would be appropriate to modify the award amount. Accordingly, taking into consideration Exs.P1 and P10 salary certificates, the salary of the deceased is fixed at Rs.17,745/-. If 10% tax is deducted (Rs.1,774.50), the balance amount of Rs.15,970.50 (rounded off to Rs.16,000/-) can be taken as the monthly salary (See 2008(2) L.W.457). Considering the promotional prospects and increment, both the counsels agreed to fix the monthly salary at Rs.17,000/- per month and the annual income thus arrived at would be Rs.2,04,000/- (Rs.17,000 x 12). Out of the said amount, if 1/3 towards personal expenses viz., Rs.68,000/- is deducted, the annual contribution of the deceased arrived at would be Rs.1,40,000/-. If the remaining period of service is taken i.e., six years, the loss of income till his retirement would be Rs.8,40,000/-(Rs.1,40,000 x 6). Earning after retirement can be fixed at Rs.10,000/-p.m. and the annual income would be Rs.1,20,000/-. If the contribution after retirement is taken for a period of five years, the total amount works out to Rs.4,00,000/-(1,20,000 x 5 x 2/3). The total loss of income would be Rs.12,40,000/- (Rs.8,40,000+ Rs.4,00,000/-). Accordingly, the loss of income is modified to Rs.12,40,000/- as against the sum of Rs.15,61,560/- as awarded by the Tribunal. If the contribution after retirement is taken for a period of five years, the total amount works out to Rs.4,00,000/-(1,20,000 x 5 x 2/3). The total loss of income would be Rs.12,40,000/- (Rs.8,40,000+ Rs.4,00,000/-). Accordingly, the loss of income is modified to Rs.12,40,000/- as against the sum of Rs.15,61,560/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500 towards loss of expectation of life. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the amount awarded towards conventional damages is very low. The age of the widow is 48 years at the time of death of her husband. Hence, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium as against the sum of Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection (each daughter Rs.10,000/-), which we feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which we feel is very low and the same is modified to Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of expectation of life. Considering the age of the deceased, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. The accident had occurred in the year 1999. At that time, the prevailing rate of interest was 7.5% p.a. Hence, it is reasonable to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 12,40,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of expectation of life Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 13,00,000/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the compensation of Rs.15,91,560/-awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.13,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.13,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited. The respondents-claimants are permitted to withdraw their proportionate shares after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.