JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh , J.—This appeal is by the Insurer being aggrieved by the exaggerated compensation awarded by the MACT and Small Causes Judge in MVC No. 501/99 by order dated 30-12-04. 2. On 14-9-98 around O.20 hours in the midnight when the claimant No. 1 and his wife Bhagyalakshmi were engaged in shifting their daughter Rashmi from Chinmaya Mission Hospital to Manipal Hospital in an ambulance bearing No. KA-03-4959 on airport road due to the negligence of the driver of the car bearing No. DL-IN-0969 who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner it dashed to the left edge of the ambulance and caused the accident, due to which, Bhagyalakshmi the wife of claimant No.1 sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Alleging that she was aged about 36 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist earning Rs. 2,50,000/- per year and that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car in question, the claim petition was filed. The Tribunal on the matter being contested having raised three issues for consideration held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No. DL-IN-0969 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,62,000/- with 6% interest. Challenging the saddling of entire liability on the Insurance company contending that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the ambulance as well and also stating that the quantum of compensation awarded in on the higher side this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the ambulance and it is also responsible for the accident. Apart from that it is also submitted that the deceased being a lady her earning would not be more than Rs. 3,000/- per month and without any basis the Tribunal has taken her income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and that the landed property available to the claimant remains as it is and only the supervision charges would have been lost. 5. 3,000/- per month and without any basis the Tribunal has taken her income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and that the landed property available to the claimant remains as it is and only the supervision charges would have been lost. 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the driver of the car has been charge sheeted and as a matter of fact finding on going through the materials on record the Tribunal has held the negligence on the driver of the car in question and that there is a valid insurance coverage. It is also submitted that the deceased was supervising more than 68 acres of land and her income would not be less than Rs. 10,000-12,000/- per month. The monthly income taken by the Tribunal itself is on the lower side and the question of further reducing the same does not arise. Accordingly, resisted the appeal. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced, the point that would arise for consideration is, whether there is a contributory negligence and whether the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side and it requires interference? 7. So far as the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence is concerned it is seen that the accident has taken place in the midnight. Admittedly, the deceased was going in the ambulance. The offending vehicle namely the car ought to have taken care before negotiating. It is seen that when the ambulance was taking right turn to go to Manipal Hospital at that time the car came straight and dashed to the ambulance. As observed earlier and also as is noticed by the Tribunal, the driver of the car ought to have been careful expecting that the ambulance would take a turn to the hospital instead it negligently dashed to the ambulance and in the process the accident occurred and the deceased Bhagyalakshmi travelling in the ambulance fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died. The Tribunal having discussed at length all the material evidence relating to the accident has rightly held that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car in question and the said finding does not require interference. 8. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident as per the PM report. 8. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident as per the PM report. Even otherwise in the claim petition filed it is stated as 36 years. According to the claimants, deceased Bhagyalakshmi was looking after the lands available in her name and she was having more than 68 acres of land in her name and was getting income of Rs. 2,50,000/- per year and that she was contributing the same towards her family. The Tribunal by taking her monthly income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses by applying the multiplier of 15 has awarded Rs. 7,20,000/- towards loss of dependency. 9. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurer as noted above that there is no cogent evidence as to the income of the deceased and that even after her death the land properties remains in tact and only the supervision charges would be lost. However, effective cultivation differs from person to person and it is not that the supervision charges can be calculated with that of an ordinary coolie who earns Rs. 100/- per day. When a huge extent of land is available to the deceased necessarily she would have done hard work and earned profit. Might be that the landed property would be available but unless it is effectively cultivated the income would not be fetched if it is left fallow. Hence, even if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month by applying the appropriate multiplier 15 having regard to her age after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses by applying the unit method the claimant would be entitled for more than Rs. 6 lakhs. Apart from the the claimants 2 to 6 are all young children of the deceased aged 16, 14, 10, 5, 2 respectively at the time of accident. Towards loss of love and affection even it is awarded suitably, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- including conventional heads. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 6,50,000/- together with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till deposit. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement. 11. Appeal partly allowed.