Judgment :- The Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 29.01.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge at Perambalur. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 211. 2004. The deceased Muthamilselvam aged about 38 years, said to be an agriculturist and an astrologer, was driving his TVS 50 moped. The said vehicle was hit by the appellant/Transport Corporation bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the deceased Muthamilselvam sustained grievous and multiple injuries and he died on the way to hospital. A case was registered against the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus in Crime No.522/2004 for the offence under section 304-A IPC. The wife of the deceased Muthamilselvam, aged about 35 years and five minor daughters aged 14,13,10,7 and 5 years respectively and a 2 1/2 years old son and the mother of the deceased, aged 58 years, totally 8 in all, filed a claim petition for compensation in a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, one Thangarasu was examined as P.W.2; Ex.P.1 is the copy of the F.I.R.; Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P.3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of appellant Transport Corporation. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in this case, awarded a sum of Rs.4,57,450/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 5. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant/Transport Corporation and the liability of the Transport Corporation to compensate the claimants is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation. The only contention raised by the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation in paragraph 7 onwards in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased was fixed as 38 years based on the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.2. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased claimed that her husband was doing agricultural operations and was also engaged in astrology and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. 6. The Tribunal decided the issue relating to compensation in paragraph 7 onwards in answer to point No.2. The age of the deceased was fixed as 38 years based on the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.2. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased claimed that her husband was doing agricultural operations and was also engaged in astrology and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. In the absence of specific documents to prove the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.3,500/- per month of which Rs.1,167/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family of the deceased per month was taken as Rs.2,333/- [Rs.3,500-Rs.1,167]. The annual loss of dependancy was, therefore, fixed at Rs.27,996/-[Rs.2,333 x 12]. Since the deceased was aged 38 years old, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and determined the total pecuniary loss at Rs.4,47,936/-[Rs.27,996 x 16]. In addition to the above, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.2,500/- was granted towards loss of love and affection to the minor daughters, son and mother. Towards loss of consortium a sum of Rs.5,000/-was granted to the wife. In all, a sum of Rs.4,57,450/-was granted with 7.5% interest per annum. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the multiplier of 16 taken in this case is on the higher side. The learned counsel also relied on the Apex courts decision reported in The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana And Others Reported In 2007 [1] Supreme 514 and stated that lesser multiplier should be adopted. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents who pleaded that the accident in this case took place in the year 2004 and the income of the deceased should be higher as he was supporting a family consisting wife, five minor daughters, a son and an aged mother. Further, for loss of love and affection, on the death of the deceased, the six minor children and the mother, totally seven in number, were given a sum of Rs.2,500/-which is a miserly amount and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased is paltry. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal need not be reduced, even assuming that the multiplier is higher. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal need not be reduced, even assuming that the multiplier is higher. The fact that the income taken is low and only a meager amount was granted towards loss of love and affection to the minor children and mother and meager amount towards loss of consortium to the wife will justify the higher multiplier adopted in this case. 9. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that multiplier adopted is higher, appears to be appealing, the fact remains that the income of the deceased should have been fixed a little higher than what has been fixed since the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the deceased was having two source of income which is not justified. While deciding the compensation, the income of the deceased can be assessed based on the following decisions, viz., .(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. .(b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2004. 10. The income of the deceased in the instant case, considering the big family that he was supporting, should have been atleast fixed by the Tribunal atleast at Rs.4,000/- or Rs.4,500/-. It is also not in dispute that he was having income both from agricultural operations and astrology. One other factor that has to be taken into consideration in this case is that all minor children are entitled to get higher compensation for loss of love and affection on the death of their father as their future is in peril. They have to be educated and also to be married off. One other factor that has to be taken into consideration in this case is that all minor children are entitled to get higher compensation for loss of love and affection on the death of their father as their future is in peril. They have to be educated and also to be married off. The wife is also entitled to get higher compensation for loss of consortium as the sum awarded is a very meager one and she has to support a big family of children all alone. Therefore, even assuming that the compensation towards pecuniary loss is marginally higher based on 16 multiplier, the fact that lesser income was taken and meager amount was granted towards loss of love and affection and towards loss of consortium, justifies the total compensation in this case. 11. This court is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the quantum awarded by the Tribunal by way of reduction and the interest at 7.5% per annum does not require any reduction as the accident in this case took place in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire amount has been deposited. The claimants are entitled to withdraw as per the order of the Tribunal. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.