Judgment :- 1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19. 2002 in M.C.O.P. No. 937 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Judge), Coimbatore. 2. The 1st claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 937 of 1993 is wife of Dhanapal, since deceased, and the 2nd and 3rd claimants are their children. The 4th and 5th claimants are the parents of the deceased. The averments in the claim petition are as hereunder: On 25. 1992, at about 7.40p.m., the deceased Dhanapal was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-37-Z-1467 along Coimbatore-Mettupalayam Road from South to North, a bus, bearing registration No. TN 37 N 0301, belonging to the 2nd respondent Corporation driven by the 1st respondent was coming in the opposite direction. There was another vehicle namely, a tempo bearing registration No. TDE 418, was also proceeding from North to South. While so, near Vannankoil Piruvu (witin Perianaickenpalayam Police Limits), the bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the tempo causing damages to the said vehicle and thereafter, hit against the motor-cycle driven by Dhanapal. The motor-cycle was badly damaged and Dhanapal was also critically injured. The injury proved fatal and Dhanapal was pronounced dead in the hospital. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident. He was running a poultry farm and was also engaged in the poultry feed business. He was earning a sum of Rs.24,500/- per month and hence, a sum of Rs.10,11,000/-was prayed as compensation. 3. In the counter statement filed b y respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the bus driver drove the vehicle in a careful manner after following the traffic rules. At about 7.30p.m., the passengers alighted in Veerapandi Bus Stop and after he started, a tempo was going ahead of the bus. The bus driver, in order to overtake the tempo, sounded horn and after getting signal from the tempo driver, when he was attempting to overtake the tempo, the motor-cyclist tried to overtake a lorry which was coming from the opposite direction and therefore, the bus driver swerved the bus to the left side to avert dashing against the motor-cycle. The bus driver, in order to overtake the tempo, sounded horn and after getting signal from the tempo driver, when he was attempting to overtake the tempo, the motor-cyclist tried to overtake a lorry which was coming from the opposite direction and therefore, the bus driver swerved the bus to the left side to avert dashing against the motor-cycle. However, the motor-cyclist lost his control and balance and dashed against the right side of the bus and fell down. The accident did not take place due to the negligence on the part of the bus driver. The tempo driver, who gave wrong signal and the motor-cyclist, who drove in a rash and negligent manner are responsible for the accident. The avocation and income of the deceased are denied and the petition has to be dismissed. 4. In the counter statement filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the motor-cycle was not insured with them. The amount claimed as compensation is excessive. Since, the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the bus driver, the 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay compensation. .5. Before this Court, the anchoring of liability upon the bus driver is not debatable. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant would very much assail the award passed by the Tribunal describing it to be on the higher side. As per the postmortem certificate, Ex-A2, the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. The claimants have produced some documents to show that the deceased was earning from various sources. Ex-A6 is the green card issued by Canara Bank appreciating the deceased as an "outstanding agriculturist". It is in the evidence of the wife of the deceased that she sold her jewels and raised a sum of Rs.1 lakh to enable the deceased to start the poultry farm and poultry feed business. She has further deposed that the deceased had borrowed Rs.25,000/-from one Velusamy, Rs.1,00,000/- from Tirumalai Chit Funds, Rs.50,000/- and another sum of Rs.60,000/-from Karamadai Co-operative Land Development Bank and also a sum of Rs.25,000/-from Canara Bank for running his business and that they have not been repaid. She has further deposed that the deceased had borrowed Rs.25,000/-from one Velusamy, Rs.1,00,000/- from Tirumalai Chit Funds, Rs.50,000/- and another sum of Rs.60,000/-from Karamadai Co-operative Land Development Bank and also a sum of Rs.25,000/-from Canara Bank for running his business and that they have not been repaid. Ex-A18 is the income tax returns prepared by the Chartered Accountant P.W.4, who has stated that the annual income of the deceased for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 are Rs.85,000/-, Rs.1,03,000/- and Rs. 99,500/-respectively. It is his further evidence that since Dhanapal died, he did not submit the income tax returns for assessment. It is further seen from the evidence that a considerable amount was spent for repairing the damaged motor-cycle. 6. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-and assessed the dependency at Rs.2000/- per month after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.3,84,000/-as total loss of income for the family. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2000/-towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.60,000/-towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards repairing the damaged motor-cycle. In all, a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that adopting multiplier of 16 is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court and the proper multiplier to be adopted, according to him, is 12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ 1076 (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation V. Sripriya) wherein the Apex Court adopted a multiplier of 12 in respect of the deceased, who was aged 37 years. .8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,450/- and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the dependency is assessed at Rs.2300/-. Adopting a multiplier of 12, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited case, the total loss of income to the family could be calculated at Rs.3,31,200/-. For loss of consortium for the 1st claimant/wife, Rs.25,000/- is awarded and for loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded. Adopting a multiplier of 12, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited case, the total loss of income to the family could be calculated at Rs.3,31,200/-. For loss of consortium for the 1st claimant/wife, Rs.25,000/- is awarded and for loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded. Rs.10,000/-, as fixed by the Tribunal towards the expenses incurred for repairing the damaged motor-cycle is sustained and a sum of Rs.10,000/-is awarded for funeral expenses. In all, a sum of Rs.4,16,200/- is awarded as compensation. 9. In fine, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the quantum of compensation from Rs.4,80,000/- to Rs.4,16,200/- and the appellant/2nd respondent is directed to pay the same to the claimants. Out of the award amount, the minor claimants are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each and the 1st claimant/wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,16,200/-. The share of the minors shall be invested in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit till they attain majority. The 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw interest from such deposit once in six months. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal stands as such.