Judgment :- 1. The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 112. 2006 made in MCOP.No.1964 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Sub Court at Dharapuram. 2. It is the case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 112. 2000. The deceased Murugesan, a vendor selling ice cream on a tri-cycle was walking on the extreme left side of Tirupur town railway over bridge, when he was hit by the bus belonging to the transport corporation driven in a rash and negligent manner. He died consequent to the grievous injuries. The wife aged about 35 years , two sons aged about 22 years and 19 years, minor daughter aged 14 years and another minor son aged 12 years. The mother and the first wife, the daughter of the first wife are added as respondents. A sum of Rs.14,00,000/-was claimed as compensation stating that income of the deceased was Rs.7000/-per month. It was stated that he was 40 years old at the time of the accident. In support of the claim, wife was examined as P.W.1. One Subramani was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 were marked on the side of the claimants. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Postmortem certificate. EX.P.3 is the death certificate. Ex.P.4 is the Family Ration Card. Ex.P.5 is the identity card. On behalf of the appellants, one Manikandan was examined as R.W.1 and the first wife of the deceased, Vedavalli was examined as R.W.2. No documents were marked on the side of the appellants. 3. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants is not disputed and the same is confirmed. The only contention raised is on the quantum of compensation. 4. This issue was decided by the Tribunal in answer to issue No.2. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 40 years based on the postmortem certificate and his income was fixed at Rs.2,100/-per month, rejecting the plea that his income was Rs.7000/-. According to the appellant there was no evidence to support the same. A sum equivalent to 1/3 was deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.1400/-per month. According to the appellant there was no evidence to support the same. A sum equivalent to 1/3 was deducted as personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.1400/-per month. The Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and a sum of Rs.2,68,800/-was fixed as compensation. In addition to the above, the Tribunal granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount of compensation with interest at 7.5%. TABLE 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the death of 40 years old man, compensation based on 16 multiplier is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons: The accident is of the year 2000. The deceased was supporting a family of 5 children, mother and two women. Further, the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal in this case is 2100/- which is a paltry amount. Considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Anandhi-vs-Latha reported in (2002 ACJ 233) and the Apex Court decision in State of Haryana and another-vs-Jasbir Kaur and others reported in (2004-1 Law Weekly). Even though the multiplier is marginally higher, since the income of the deceased fixed is on the lower side the marginally higher multiplier will compensate for the lesser income taken by the Tribunal and therefore, the quantum of compensation does not require any further reduction. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/-has been granted towards loss of love and affection to five children which is pittance. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation. The interest of 7.5% granted by the Tribunal is also confirmed as the accident took place in the year 2000 and the award was passed in the year 2006. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks six weeks time to deposit the entire amount. On such deposit being made the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same as per the order of the Tribunal. No costs.