Judgment :- Aggrieved by the award of Rs.3,40,000/-as against the respondents claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-transport corporation. 2. The Case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that one Mr.Nataraj doing flower and vegetable business, earning about Rs.4,000/-and aged about 32 years, died in the accident occurred on 210. 2000 hit by the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. Hence the claim petition was filed which was resisted by the appellant Corporation. 3. Before the Tribunal the widow of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P-1 FIR and Ex.P-2 Postmortem report were marked on the side of the claimants and on the side of the appellant corporation, the driver of the appellant corporation bus was examined as RW-1. 4. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant driver was only responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-to the respondents/claimants. The said award only is impugned before this Court. 5. Mr. P. Jagadeeswar learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument only with regard to quantum of compensation alone. As the negligent aspects is not challenged, it is deemed that the findings given by the Tribunal regarding negligence attained finality and there is no necessity to go into that aspect. 6. The learned counsel particularly attacked the award, with regard to the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal based on Ex.P-2 postmortem report fixed the age of the deceased as 35 and adopted multiplier 17 as per the II schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel relied upon Judgment of the Apex Court in United India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kalpana and others reported in 2007 ACJ 829 wherein the deceased was aged about 33 years working as a taxi driver and also doing agriculture and that widow and two minor children have filed the claim petition and that the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.4,000/-and adopted multiplier 17. On appeal, the Honble Apex Court fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and adopted multiplier 13 instead of 17. Relying on the said Judgment the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that in this case also multiplier 13 has to be adopted and based on that the loss of income could be arrived. 7. On appeal, the Honble Apex Court fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and adopted multiplier 13 instead of 17. Relying on the said Judgment the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that in this case also multiplier 13 has to be adopted and based on that the loss of income could be arrived. 7. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant for attacking the award by the Tribunal is that it awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of future life, as there is no such provision in the Motor Vehicle Act. 8. On the other hand Mr.V.Kumaravelan learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,500/-as against the claim of Rs.4,000/-. Even after fixing a sum of Rs.2,500/-as monthly income 1/3 was deducted and only a sum of Rs.1,500/-was taken as monthly contribution and sought for enhancement of monthly income. He also attacked the award for having made 1/3 deduction towards personal income especially when the dependants are more than 4. He relied upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 wherein it is held that if the deceased was married and the number of dependants are 4-6, 1/4 alone should be deducted towards personal expenses. 9. As far as the multiplier is concerned, he relied upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Smt.Saroja and others reported in 2009 (8) SCC 619 wherein the deceased was aged about 41 years and the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 16 as per the II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and the High Court confirmed the award. The Honble Supreme Court also upheld the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal stating that the application of the multiplier of 16 is not higher. Regarding the income, the learned counsel relied upon another recent Judgment of Honble Supreme Court passed in R.K.Malik and another Vs. Kiran pandi and others reported in 2009 (8) SCALE 451. In that case, school children fell in the river while travelling in a bus and about 29 children died. The Tribunal took annual income of Rs.15,000/- per annum for the school children as per the II schedule awarded compensation. Kiran pandi and others reported in 2009 (8) SCALE 451. In that case, school children fell in the river while travelling in a bus and about 29 children died. The Tribunal took annual income of Rs.15,000/- per annum for the school children as per the II schedule awarded compensation. On appeal to the High Court, pecuniary loss of Rs.75,000/- was awarded and on further appeal, the Honble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation by awarding a sum of Rs.75,000/- more in each case towards loss of future prospects. Relying on those Judgments the learned counsel for the respondent sought for enhancement of the amount granted by the Tribunal. 10. Heared the counsel for the appellant and respondents. In this case the deceased was aged about 35 years which was proved by Ex.P-2 postmortem report. Though a sum of Rs.4,000/- was sought for monthly income and a sum of Rs.2,500/- was fixed as monthly income and after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards personal expenses, a sum of Rs.2,500/- was taken as monthly contribution to the family and a sum of Rs.18,000/- was calculated as anuual contribution. Applying multiplier 17, 18000X17=Rs.3,06,000/- was arrived as loss of income. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- in the following manner: Loss of income Rs.3,06,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Loss of future life Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 4,000/- Rs.3,40,000/- 11. The Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kalpana (smt) and others reported in 2007 (3) SCC 538 held that in the absence of any definite material about the monthly income contribution to the family after deduction for personal expenses was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the deceased was a driver aged about 33 years and the accident occurred on 07.06.1999. In the case on hand, the deceased was flower and vegetable vendor, aged about 35 years and the accident occurred on 20.10.2000. More or less the age and other details are similar in nature. Applying the principle laid down in Kalpana case, it is appropriate to take the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family after deduction towards as personal expenses at Rs.3,000/-. In the case referred in the aforesaid Judgment also multiplier 17 was adopted and the same was reduced to 13 by the Honble Supreme Court. Applying the principle laid down in Kalpana case, it is appropriate to take the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family after deduction towards as personal expenses at Rs.3,000/-. In the case referred in the aforesaid Judgment also multiplier 17 was adopted and the same was reduced to 13 by the Honble Supreme Court. Similarly, applying the same monthly contribution of Rs.3,000/-, the multiplier 13 is adopted by this Court and the loss of income is arrived as follows: 3,000X12X13=Rs.4,68,000/- 12. As far as the consortium is concerned, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. What has to be considered while awarding the amount towards consortium is the age of the widow. In this case the widow is aged about 28 years, loss of life companion at the young age of 25 is very pitiable and she would be loosing love, affection and care of the husband throughout her life, and hence it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium. 13. "Compensate -Console-Comfort":- What is the principle to be followed in the case of Motor Vehicle claims is "Compensate-Console-Comfort" of. The deceased left behind the widow and 3 children and mother. The second respondent was aged about 5 years, third respondent was aged about 3 years and fourth respondent was aged about 1 ½ years. The role of the father in grooming the children is very important. The love, affection, care and guidance from the father have been lost by the children throughout their life and it is very unfortunate. Hence, they have to be suitably compensated for loosing their father at very young age. Accordingly, each of the minors namely Krishnakumar, Pushpa and Soundarya are awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-each towards loss of love and affection and the fifth respondent, the mother was entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- in toto. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of future life. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, there is no provision in the Act for the said category. Hence, the said sum of Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is deleted. The sum of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest for the compensation. However, following the Kalpana case reported in 2007 SCC(3) 538, the interest is reduced to 6%. Hence, the said sum of Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is deleted. The sum of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest for the compensation. However, following the Kalpana case reported in 2007 SCC(3) 538, the interest is reduced to 6%. 14. In the appeal filed by the transport corporation as against the award of Rs.3,40,000/-the compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,47,000/- in the following manner: Loss of income Rs.4,68,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 4,000/- Rs.5,47,000/- 15. Powers of the Court to enhance the compensation in the appeal filed by Insurance Company:- The learned counsel for the appellant opposed the enhancement of the compensation in the appeal filed by the transportation corporation. This Court has got jurisdiction and powers order Under 41 Rule 31 of Motor Vehicles Act even in the absence of any appeal by the claimants. On appreciation of facts and circumstances only, the amount was enhanced. For that, this Court gets the support from the Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh reported in 2003 (2) SCC page 224, The AP SRTC Vs.Ramadevi and others reported in 2008 (1) TNMAC 234, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd Vs.Saroja reported in 2008 (1) TNMAC 352 and State of Punjab Vs. Bakshith Singh reported in 1998 (8) SCC 222 . 16. Beneficial nature of Motor Vehicle Act:-Only after appreciating the facts and coming to the conclusion that what the Tribunal awarded was inadequate and not reasonable compensation, the amount of compensation was enhanced. This Court enhanced the compensation even in the absence of appeal by the claimant. Moreover, the provision of Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial and benevolent in nature and it should be liberally construed by awarding compensation especially in fatal cases. The beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act has been declared by the Honble Supreme Court in many Judgments viz, New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs L. Padma reported in AIR 2003 SC 4394 Mahendra Rathore Vs Omkar Singh reported in AIR 2002 SC 505 . 17. Accordingly, award of Rs.3,40,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,47,000/- in the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation along with the interest 6%. There will be no order as to costs.