Judgment : Per V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the lower Court in M.C.O.P.No. 1910 of 2001 dated 112. 2003. 2. The appellants are the claimants before the lower Court. The respondents figured as respondents before the lower Court. 3. The case of the claimant before the lower Court stated in brief as follows: On 23.102000 at about 11.50 hours, the deceased was riding on a motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-02-A-1816 inside the Harbour, Pandaga Salai to T.W.O.H Civil Division. While he was proceeding near west Quay-3, the articulator Lorry bearing registration no. MP-23-DA-5095 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner came along West Quay-3, in the east to west direction and dashed against the motor cycle due to which the rider sustained fatal injuries and pillion rider also sustained injuries. The accident is solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the articulator lorry bearing registration no. MP-23-DA-5095. Hence, the 1st respondent as owner of the said lorry and the second respondent as its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner at Rs.22,00,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. 4. The contentions raised by the second respondent in the statement of objection would be as follows: The respondent denied the allegation that on 210. 2000 the deceased was riding a motor cycle inside the harbour TWOX Civil Division and while proceeding near west Quay-3, the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner in the east to west direction and dashed against the motor cycle and caused fatal injuries and pillion rider also sustained injuries. The second respondent states that the alleged accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased person in riding his motor cycle and the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the accident. The second respondent further states that since the alleged accident has occurred inside the harbour, which is a private place, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of the policy condition. The second respondent denied the allegation that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident and he was working as mazdoor and was earning a sum of Rs.10,636.76 per month. In any event, the compensation claimed is highly excessive. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 5. The second respondent denied the allegation that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident and he was working as mazdoor and was earning a sum of Rs.10,636.76 per month. In any event, the compensation claimed is highly excessive. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 5. The lower Court had examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and admitted Exhibits A-1 to A-9 on the side of the petitioners and no witnesses nor any documents produced on the side of the respondent. The lower Court had come to a conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.11,12,500/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with costs. Aggrieved at the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Court, the claimants have preferred the present appeal for its enhancement. 6. Heard Mr. N.M. Muthurajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Mr. S. Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the second respondent. For convenience, the ranks of parties before the lower Court are maintained in this judgment. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit in his argument that the lower Court, had not considered the claim of the claimant but had awarded only a sum of Rs.11,12,500/-with interest and costs. The lower Court had erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-p.m only whereas the claimants have produced Exhibit P-3, the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of August 2000 at Rs.10,6376. He would further submit in his argument that the deceased was working as mazdoor and according to the evidence of P.W.2, a co-employee of the deceased, his salary was Rs.12,733.78 per month and his salary slip is Exhibit P-6. 8. He would also submit in his argument that the lower Court had not considered the evidence of P.W.4, who would speak to the effect that the deceased would have been promoted as Head Mastery with a basic salary of Rs.9,500/- at the time of his retirement, if he would have been live. He would submit that the lower Court had not considered the future prospects of the deceased person while arriving the compensation payable to the claimants in the light of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. He would submit that the lower Court had not considered the future prospects of the deceased person while arriving the compensation payable to the claimants in the light of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. He would also submit that the benefits which would accrue to the employment of the deceased should have also been considered for assessing the compensation for the loss of the deceased person. The lower Court had, after fixing the income at Rs.7,504.50, wrongly deducted a sum of Rs.2,000/- for compulsory deduction for income tax etc., even after deducting 1/3 towards maintenance of the deceased person. 9. He would submit in his argument that the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid a dictum to the effect that the allowances and the prospects accrued by the employment of the deceased person should have been considered. He would cite a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Others v. Hari Singh Malviya and Others 2009 ACJ 1580 (AC) to the principle that dearness allowance should have been considered as a part of the income while computing the compensation to the claimants. 10. He would also cite the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Raj Rani and Others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others 2009 ACJ 2003 to the principle that all the allowances beneficial to the entire family should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of income of the deceased. He would also place his reliance on the said judgment for the consideration of future prospects of the deceased person in his employment. 11. He would also submit in his argument that if the lower Court had considered all these aspects, it would have awarded higher compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefits accrued due to the loss of life of the deceased K. Murugesan, the husband of the first claimant. He would further submit in his argument that the lower Court had grossly erred in awarding the lesser compensation of Rs.7,500/- towards the loss of consortium for the first claimant which is very low. He would again bring it to the notice of the Court that the lower Court has awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/-towards the loss of love and affection. He would again bring it to the notice of the Court that the lower Court has awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/-towards the loss of love and affection. He would further submit that the deceased died unfortunately in the accident, at his age of 28 years and, therefore, the claim of damages for loss of consortium as well as the loss of love and affection should not have been less than Rs.45,000/- per claimant. 12. He would also bring to the notice of this Court the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Rani Gupta and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others 2009 ACJ 1605 wherein a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.75,000/- for loss of love and affection which was upheld by the Apex Court. He had also cited a judgment of this Court between Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. R. Shanthi and Others (2005) 3 MLJ 29 : 2006 ACJ 2507 in respect of fixing a higher compensation of not less than Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium. Therefore, he would request the Court that the compensation awarded by the lower Court has to be enhanced suitably as per the dictums of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court with interest and costs and the appeal thus be allowed. 13. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit in his argument that the lower Court was correct in awarding compensation after applying the deductions suitably. He would further submit in his argument that even, if the deceased is considered alive, he would be doing the employment of mazdoor and has no promotional chances and he would have the benefit of pay revision only and such a pay revision would not be immediate and, therefore, the allowances for quantum and other prospects need not be considered in this case. He would also submit in his argument that the lower Court had properly fixed the compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and, therefore, there is no revision necessary as submitted by the claimants. The quantum of monthly income at Rs.7,500/- calculated by the lower Court is only subject to the deductions for payment of taxes and other necessary lawful deductions. The quantum of monthly income at Rs.7,500/- calculated by the lower Court is only subject to the deductions for payment of taxes and other necessary lawful deductions. Therefore, there is no need for any interference the award passed by the lower Court and accordingly, the appeal may not allowed by upsetting the judgment and award passed by the lower Court. 14. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advances on either side. .15. The appellants have preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. The second respondent did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and award passed by the lower Court and, therefore, the findings reached regarding the liability to pay compensation need not be gone into. The only point to be seen is as to whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court at Rs.11,12,500/- with subsequent interest and costs has to be enhanced as requested by the claimants or not. The documents produced on the side of the claimants would prove that the deceased K. Murugesan was working as a Mazdoor in Port and it was a permanent job. The evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that the deceased K. Murugesan would have got his promotion as Head ministry at the end of his career and the basic salary for the said post would be around Rs.9,000/-. However, it has been shown to the Court through the evidence of P.W.2, who is a comazdoor worked along with the deceased, that the employment of Mazdoor has got pay revision with increments. According to his evidence, he was drawing a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, we could see that the deceased was having good prospects in his employment and rare promotional changes at the fag end of his employment. The lower Court had admitted the pay slip of the deceased K.Murugesan in Exhibit P-3 in which we could see that the total monthly salary was Rs.10,6376. The said monthly salary includes the Over Time Allowances also. It is quite clear from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Others v. Hari Singh Malviya and Others (supra) that the Dearness Allowance cannot be refused to consider as income. The relevant passage would be thus: “Dearness Allowance, in our opinion, should form part of income. It is quite clear from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Others v. Hari Singh Malviya and Others (supra) that the Dearness Allowance cannot be refused to consider as income. The relevant passage would be thus: “Dearness Allowance, in our opinion, should form part of income. House rent allowance is paid for the benefit of the family members and not for the employee alone. What would constitute an income, albeit in a different fact situation, came up for consideration before this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Indira Srivastava, 2008 ACJ 614 (SC), wherein it was held: “17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for the computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contra distinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. (18) The terms ‘income’ in P. RAMANATHA AIYAR’s ADVANCED LAW LEXICON, 3rd Edn. has been defined as under: The value of any benefit or perquisite whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or a person who has substantial interest in the company, and any sum paid by such company in respect of any obligation, which but for such payment would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid, occurring or arising to a persons within the State from any profession, trade or calling other than agriculture.” It has also been stated: ‘Income’ signified ‘what comes in’ (perselborne, C, Jones v. Ogle, 42 LJ Ch 336.’ It is as large a word as can be used’ to denote a person’s receipts (perjessel, M.R., In re: Huggins 51 LJ Ch 938), income is not confined to receipts from business only and means periodical receipts from one’s work, lands, investments, etc. AIR 1921 Mad 421 (SB). AIR 1921 Mad 421 (SB). Ref.124 IC 511: 1930 MWN 29:31 MLW 438: AIR 1930 MAD 626 : 58 MLJ 337.” (19) If the dictionary meaning of the word ‘income’ is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or profession tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.” To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,v. Ram Prasad Varma, 2009 ACJ 1006 (SC).” Similarly, the another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Raj Rani and Others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Others (supra) would go to show a similar view. It would run as follows: “The fact that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.17,431 is not in dispute. Apart from the dearness allowance, if other allowances were payable which were beneficial to the entire family, the same should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the annual income. It was so held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava (supra),.” On a careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, we could see that what are all the allowances beneficial to the family should have been computed for assessing the total income of the family. 17. As regards the over time allowances is concerned, it would be fluctuating from month to month. It depends upon the work exerted by the deceased workmen during the corresponding period. However, when we consider the future prospects for increment in the salary and promotion, which are fag end of his employment, we can compensate the notional increase for the prospects and the promotion at the fag end of his employment along with overtime allowances accrued with the total income shown through Exhibit P-3. Therefore, the total amount as shown through Exhibit P-3 should have been considered as the income of the deceased. However, the lower Court had deducted Rs.2,000/- per month out of monthly salary of the deceased towards compulsory deduction. The said deduction is not known to law. The lower Court has not explained for what purpose it has been deducted. Therefore, the total amount as shown through Exhibit P-3 should have been considered as the income of the deceased. However, the lower Court had deducted Rs.2,000/- per month out of monthly salary of the deceased towards compulsory deduction. The said deduction is not known to law. The lower Court has not explained for what purpose it has been deducted. If it is actually deducted for payment towards income tax or professional tax, there was nothing suggested that the deceased was paying income tax. For paying professional tax, a sum of Rs.1,000/- could be deducted from out of the annual income of the deceased Person. Otherwise, no other deduction can be made except the deduction towards maintenance of the deceased person. 18. Accordingly, when the annual income of the deceased is calculated on the income arrived from Exhibit P-3, we could see that it would be around for a sum of Rs.1,27,641/-. When Rs.1,000/- is deducted out of it towards payment of professional tax, we could see a sum of Rs.1,26,641/- as his annual income. In the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009) 4 MLJ 997: (2009) 2 TNMAC 1 (SC), it has been held as follows: “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards Personal and Living Expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. ‘Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (i/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (With) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” According to the said judgment, if number of family members are less than three, the deduction would be 1/3 towards the maintenance of the deceased person and if it exceeds three, other factors should have been considered. As far s this case is concerned, the dependants, namely, the claimants, are three in number and therefore, 1/3 of the deduction towards the maintenance of the deceased person is apt. As far s this case is concerned, the dependants, namely, the claimants, are three in number and therefore, 1/3 of the deduction towards the maintenance of the deceased person is apt. In the said circumstances, if 1/3 is deducted from out of the annual income, it would come to Rs. 84,427/-. In the same judgment, it has been also categorically laid down regarding the fixation of multiplier. The relevant passage would be as follows: “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above) prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17. for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years” According to the said dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we could see that the person aged about 28 years would attract the multiplier at 17. So, when the multiplier 17 is used for calculating the loss of monthly income, it would come to Rs.14,35,259/-. 19. As regards the loss of consortium is concerned, in the judgment of this Court in between Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. R. Shanthi and Others (supra), for the deceased aged 28 years, it has been fixed at Rs.20,000/-. However, the lower Court had fixed the loss of consortium at Rs.7,500/- only, which is ex facie found meager. Therefore, the said consortium is raised from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.20,000/-. Similarly, the loss of love and affection has been fixed by the lower Court at Rs.5,000/- which is also found to be very low and every claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of income and on that score, a sum of Rs.45,000/- as payable to the claimants. Similarly, the loss of love and affection has been fixed by the lower Court at Rs.5,000/- which is also found to be very low and every claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of income and on that score, a sum of Rs.45,000/- as payable to the claimants. In other respects, the award passed by the lower Court is in order and, therefore, the total compensation to be awarded to the claimants should have been at Rs.14,87,759/- with proportionate costs. Therefore, the petitioners appellants re found entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,75,259/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs apart from the compensation awarded by the lower Court. 20. In fine, the appeal is allowed with costs and thereby an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,75,259/- is awarded to the petitioners/claimants apart from a sum of Rs.11,12,500/- as awarded by the lower Court and the enhanced compensation is directed to be paid to the petitioners/claimants with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.