Judgment :- 1. Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 1. 2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1138 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Salem. 2. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the appellants counsel and the same is confirmed. 3. At the time of admission, the only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 15. 2005. The deceased Gopal said to be aged 50 years, a driver-cum-driving school owner, was walking on the side of the platform. When he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Stating that his income was Rs.10,000/- per month a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was claimed by his wife aged 45 years, son aged 29 years, two daughters aged 27 and 20 years respectively, father aged 70 years and mother aged 65 years. 5. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Lingeswaran, the eye witness was examined as P.W.2. One Shajahan, an assistant working in the Regional Transport Office was examined as P.W.3. The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. On behalf of the claimants, Exs.A-1 to A-6 were filed, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of post-mortem certificate dated 15. 2005, Ex.A-2 is the copy of death certificate dated 31. 2006, Ex.A-3 is the legal heir certificate dated 27. 2005, Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of F.I.R. dated 15. 2005, Ex.A-5 is the identity card issued by the Election Commission and Ex.A-6 is the documents showing that the deceased Gopal was running the Mahendra Driving School for the period from 9. 1997 to 9. 2002 No document was marked by the appellant, respondent before the Tribunal. 6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the award in answer to point No.2. 1997 to 9. 2002 No document was marked by the appellant, respondent before the Tribunal. 6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the award in answer to point No.2. As per post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was fixed as 50 years. Ex.A-6 shows that the deceased was running a driving school. The fact remains that the driving licence was not renewed after 2002. It is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.3. Therefore, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants at Rs.10,000/-per month cannot be accepted and the income was fixed at Rs.3,600/- per month of which 1/3 was deducted towards personal expenses. The contribution to the family of the deceased was determined at Rs.2,400/-per month. Based on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted 13 multiplier. Accordingly, the total pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased was determined at Rs.3,74,400/- (Rs.2,400/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.3,74,400/-). In addition, the Tribunal granted amounts under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,21,900/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5% as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the family of the deceased Rs.3,74,400/- 2 Transport and funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- 3 Loss of consortium to the wife Rs. 15,000/- 4 Loss of love and affection to the three siblings and aged parents Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs.4,21,900/- 7. The contention of the appellants counsel is that for the death of a 50 years old earning member, the multiplier "13" adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, the compensation is higher and has to be reduced. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- .(i) The accident happened in the year 2005. The income of the deceased, said to be a driving school owner and formerly a driver, was claimed Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken as Rs.3,600/-per month only. It should be more in view of the Apex Courts decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Kalpana and others 2007 reported in ACJ 825. In that case, the Apex Court fixed the income of the taxi driver at Rs.4,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken as Rs.3,600/-per month only. It should be more in view of the Apex Courts decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Kalpana and others 2007 reported in ACJ 825. In that case, the Apex Court fixed the income of the taxi driver at Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the higher multiplier taken, it compensates the lesser income taken and therefore, the compensation is justified. .(ii) The loss of love and affection granted to the three siblings and aged parents of the deceased, lesser amount of Rs.30,000/- only was granted. It should be more. (iii) In over all consideration of the compensation, the award granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. (iv)The appellant has not made out any case to reduce the compensation any further. 9. Since the accident in this case happened in the year 2005 and the award is passed on 1. 2008, the interest granted at 7.5% stands confirmed. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant prays eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and it is granted. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.