Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Commissioner, Thiruvottriyur Municipality against the Judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Small Causes Court Judge), Chennai passed in M.C.O.P.No.4905 of 2001, dated 29.03.2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,92,000/-to the respondents together with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. The facts of the case are as follows;- On 29.06.2001, at about 13.15 hours, while the deceased, Pandurangan was crossing the basin bridge road, in front of Door No.22/113 from North to South direction, the lorry bearing registration No. TN 20-Z 6961 which was coming from west to east direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the deceased. In the result, the deceased fell down and the left rear wheel of the lorry ran over him. Further, he sustained injuries and died. The legal heir of the deceased, Pandurangam, namely the first petitioner, wife of the deceased and the second petitioner, minor son of the deceased filed the above claim petition against the respondent. The said accident was investigated by the H-1 Washermanpet Police Station, Chennai and a case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2001. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents lorry bearing registration No.TN-20-Z-6961. 3. The appellant/Commissioner, Thiruvottiyur Municipality took a stand that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, but the accident took place only due to the fact that the deceased was in a drunken condition and fell down before the respondent vehicle and in the result, the deceased sustained injuries and lost his life. Further the respondent does not admit the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Further it is alleged that the claim amount is on the higher side. 4. On the side of the respondent/claimant, three witness have examined as PW1 to PW3 and 10 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, RW1, one Prakasam was examined. No document was marked on the side of the respondent. 5. The learned Tribunal framed two issues namely; 1) Who is responsible for the said accident and 2) What is the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to the claimants. 6. On the side of the respondent, RW1, one Prakasam was examined. No document was marked on the side of the respondent. 5. The learned Tribunal framed two issues namely; 1) Who is responsible for the said accident and 2) What is the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to the claimants. 6. In order to prove the negligence, PW1 was examined and to support her case, first information report and sketch were marked. PW2 one Delhi Babu, who was the eyewitness, was examined and he stated in his evidence that the deceased Pandurangan was walking on the left side of the road, when TN 20 Z 6961 lorry dashed against the deceased, who died subsequently. PW3, investigated the case and registered a criminal case against the lorry driver, Sivaprakasam. 7. After considering the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the exhibits marked on the claimants side including F.I.R and sketch, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the said accident. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion, on the strength of S.S.L.C. certificate and driving licence, that the deceased age was 45 years, and he was a driver by profession and his monthly income was Rs.3,600 per month, that, after deducting his personal expenses, his contributions to the claimants/defendants were at Rs.2,400/-per month. The learned Tribunal calculated the compensation as per the following schedule under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and has awarded compensation as under: In total Rs.4,92,000/- was awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the decree and judgment i.e. Compensation award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the following grounds; 1) The learned Tribunal has only taken into consideration the Ex.P9, First Information Report and Ex.P10, sketch for coming to a conclusion on award, but the tribunal has not given weightage to the evidence of the driver of the respondents lorry. 2) Further, the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,600/- per month. 3) The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000 for loss of expectation of life with husband, which is erroneous. 4) The Tribunal has again awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection. 2) Further, the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,600/- per month. 3) The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000 for loss of expectation of life with husband, which is erroneous. 4) The Tribunal has again awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection. 5) Age of the deceased has been fixed wrongly as between 40 to 45 and that the multiplies has to be taken as 13 instead of 15. So, the learned Tribunals award is incorrect on the above grounds. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of expectation of life to the petitioner and again awarded Rs.15,000/-for love and affection to the petitioner, as these are awarded on two heads, but this Court treats the said amount as under one head as compensation paid for consortium, in total Rs.30,000/-. Further the higher multiplier should be taken considering the age of the deceased and accordingly, the multiplier of 15 is correct. This Court is of the view that the deceased was a driver and his income of Rs.3,600/-per month as salary of deceased is reasonable. The learned Tribunal order is just, equitable and fair. Therefore, the Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance amount with accrued interest into the credit of M.C.O.P.No.4905 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Judge, Small Cause Court), Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is open to the claimant to receive the balance amount by filing payment out application in accordance with law, subject to the second claimant becoming major on the date of withdrawal. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/IV Small Cause Court, Chennai passed in M.C.O.P.No.4905 of 2001 is confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.