Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P. No: 553 of 1999 dated 28.02.2001, preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts submitted by both the parties before the lower Court are as follows :- "(a) On 08.03.1999 at 20.15 hours the deceased S.Devendran was running his business at the bunk shop by sitting inside his shop at Chetteri Kottu Road, Arakonam Taluk. At that time, the respondents passenger stage carriage bus bearing Registration No: TN – 21 N-0122, which was proceeding from East to West on the Chetteri Kottu Road was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus stop after hitting down the passenger standing there and others and rammed inside the nearby shop of the deceased. As a result of which the deceased Devendran, Subramani and others suffered injuries and Devendran died on the spot. Hence, the family of Devendran had filed the claim petition seeking an appropriate compensation. (b) The bus was prodceeding to Sholingur from Chennai. At 08.15 p.m. in the evening on 08.03.1999 when the bus was proceeding near Cittari Kootu Road, suddenly a scooter came from the leftside. Though the driver applied brake to avoid hitting on the scooter, the bus did not stop and hit against the passengers standing in the bus stop. The accident did not occur because of the driver of the bus but, it happened only due to the way in which the scooter was driven by its rider. Hence,the driver is not responsible for the accident and so the Corporation is not liable to pay any amount. In any event, the claimants have to prove the age, occupation, income, dependency of the claimants and hence, the Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation." 3. The lower Court had, after a full fledged enquiry, come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants, who seek enhancement of compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, had filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 5. The claimants, who seek enhancement of compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, had filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would submit in his argument that the lower Court had found that the deceased, husband of the 1st claimant, was running a bunk shop and the bunk shop itself was damaged in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent Corporation and in the said accident the husband of the 1st claimant Mr. Devendran died on the spot and had also fixed the compensation for the damages to the bunk shop at Rs.20,000/-but at the same time, it had fixed a sum of Rs.100/- only as the income of the deceased per day and had also counted 25 days leaving all the holidays for running the bunk shop and deducted 40% for the maintenance of the deceased which are not in accordance with the evidence and norms fixed by the precedents of this Court as well as the Apex Court. 6. He would further submit in his arguments that the fixation of monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs.1,500/- is very meagre sum for the bunk shop owner and, therefore, the compensation has to be computed on the basis of evidence atleast on a minimum sum of Rs.3,000/- as income per month and future prospects should have also been considered and the monthly dependency of the claimants should have been fixed at Rs. 4,000/- per month. He would further submit in his argument that the fixation of compensation on other heads for consortium, loss of love and affection are all too low and they have to be revised and enhanced in accordance with the evidence adduced by the claimants and, therefore, an enhanced and suitable compensation may be awarded to the claimants and the appeal be allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents Transport Corporation would submit in his argument that the lower Court had considered the evidence and had fixed the income of the deceased Devendran at Rs.100/- per day and deducted 40% for his maintenance promptly; suitable multiplier was also fixed and therefore, the compensation calculated by the lower Court was in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondents Transport Corporation would submit in his argument that the lower Court had considered the evidence and had fixed the income of the deceased Devendran at Rs.100/- per day and deducted 40% for his maintenance promptly; suitable multiplier was also fixed and therefore, the compensation calculated by the lower Court was in accordance with law. He would further submit that the other heads of compensation as fixed by the lower Court were in accordance with the norms fixed by the Apex Court as well as this Court. Apart from that, he would further submit in his arguments that the compensation awarded for a bunk shop at Rs.20,000/- is also on the higher side. However, he would submit that as he has not preferred any appeal against the said finding of the lower Court, the award passed by the lower Court may be confirmed and it need not be enhanced and the appeal be dismissed. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. The deceased Devendran was the husband of the 1st claimant and father of the 4th claimant and son of the claimants 2 and 3. It is not disputed that the deceased was conducting a bunk shop at the time of accident. The accident had happened on the fateful day when the deceased Devendran was in his bunk shop. The driver of the respondent Corporation had driven the bus and dashed against the bunk shop and hit against Devendran and the said Devendran died on the spot. The accident itself speaks volume on the negligence of the respondent’s driver. Apart from that the avocation of the deceased could be easily understood that he was running a bunk shop and also a cycle shop at the accident spot and was eking out his livelihood. When we consider the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant, it could be seen that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month through the bunk shop. On the other hand, the lower Court had fixed the income of the deceased Devendran at Rs.100/- per day. The lower Court had also calculated the same for 25 days in a month and fixed the monthly dependency at Rs.1,500/- after deducting 40% of the income towards maintenance of the deceased person. On the other hand, the lower Court had fixed the income of the deceased Devendran at Rs.100/- per day. The lower Court had also calculated the same for 25 days in a month and fixed the monthly dependency at Rs.1,500/- after deducting 40% of the income towards maintenance of the deceased person. Per contra, the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant would show that the deceased was having cycles to let them on hire from his bunk shop itself. The said evidence was not considered by the lower Court. Normally, a bunk shop could easily fetch an income of Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 1999. It was also shown to Court that the deceased was having bicycles for being let on hire. The learned counsel for the claimants would insist for considering the future prospects of the deceased person and to fix the income at Rs.4,000/- per month. However, considering the fluctuation in the business of the bunk shop, the said future prospects cannot be considered in this case. Therefore, the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- could have been taken for calculating the compensation. When we calculate the monthly dependency for the claimants we have to deduct only one third for the maintenance of the deceased person and after such deduction we could see that a sum of Rs.2000/- could be fixed as monthly dependency. The deceased was aged 30 years on the date of the accident. The lower Court had adopted the multiplier 17. When we go through the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the correct multiplier to be adopted for the age in between 25 and 30 is 18. On such calculation with the use of 18 as multiplier and the monthly dependency at Rs.3,000/-, a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/-can be granted towards compensation for the loss of life of the deceased. The learned counsel for the respondent would bring it to the knowledge of this Court, a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (1) T.N.M.A.C. Page 1 S.C. [New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Kalpana and others], to the effect that the multiplier of 17 should not be fixed for the deceased aged 33 years and the correct multipler would be 13. On a careful perusal of the judgment of our Supreme Court, it has been categorically fixed the multiplier at 13 for the deceased person aged 33 years. So far as this case is concerned, the deceased was aged 30 years and therefore, the facts of the case discussed in the judgment is not applicable to the present case. The bunk shop owned by the deceased was completely damaged and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was asked for by the claimants in their petition. The lower Court had accepted the said claim and had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. So far as the claim of compensation for funeral expenses is concerned, the lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is also found to be correct. The lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st claimant for the loss of consortium. The 1st claimant was aged only 23 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the awarding of a sum of Rs.10,000/- is very low. The 1st claimant should have been awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards loss of consortium. The 4th claimant, the son of the deceased Devendran was awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection which is found to be correct. The claimants 2 and 3 were not granted compensation for the loss of love and affection. Being the parents, they are each entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/-and the failure of the lower Court in awarding the said compensation is not correct. Therefore, the claimants are found to have been entitled to a sum of Rs.5,02,000/-as compensation whereas the lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.3,51,000/-only. In the aforesaid circumstances, the award passed by the lower Court is, necessarily, modified and the appeal be allowed with proportionate costs. In the result, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,02,000/-and out of the said sum of Rs.5,02,000/-the claimants are equally entitled to a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- and the 1st claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- as loss of consortium; the 2nd and 3rd claimants are each entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of love and affection and the 4th claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection. 9. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced sum of Rs.1,51,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The parties are at liberty to withdraw their due share on such deposit of the enhanced compensation by the respondent Transport Corporation, except the share of the minor 4th claimant, which is to be kept in fixed deposit till he attains the age of majority.