Judgment :- 1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 211. 2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.398 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagapattinam. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 12. 2004. The deceased Rethinakumar, aged 40 years, a cattle broker and agricultural coolie, was travelling on a moped and was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus. In that accident the said Rethinakumar died. The wife aged 30 years, two minor daughters aged 6 and 4 years respectively and mother aged 52 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Pending claim before the Tribunal, the mother of the deceased died. 3. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Manickkam, the eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the F.I.R., dated 12. 2004, Ex.P-2 is the post-mortem certificate dated 12. 2004, Exs.P-3 and P-4 are Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Reports dated 12. 2004 and Ex.P-5 is the returned C.P., dated 20.12.2004. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal. 4. A plea was taken in the counter-affidavit that three persons travelled in the moped, however, that statement was not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence, viz., the F.I.R., Ex.P-1 and Motor Vehicle Inspectors Inspection Reports Exs.P-3 and P-4 came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus. There is no material to contravert such finding of negligence and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, before the Tribunal it was stated that the deceased was 35 years old and that is supported by Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate. The deceased was survived by his wife and two minor children. There is no material to contravert such finding of negligence and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, before the Tribunal it was stated that the deceased was 35 years old and that is supported by Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate. The deceased was survived by his wife and two minor children. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/-per month stating that there was no evidence to support the income of Rs.6,000/-per month as claimed. Out of the said sum of Rs.2,400/-, 1/3 was deducted and the annual pecuniary loss to the family of the deceased was fixed as Rs.19,200/-. By adopting 16 multiplier, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,07,200/- towards pecuniary loss. The Tribunal also granted compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Table 6. In appeal, it is contended that the multiplier 16 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and to reduce the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:- .(i) The accident in this case happened on 12. 2004. The deceased Rethinakumar is aged 35 years old and a cattle broker and an agricultural coolie. No document can be produced for the purpose of income by agricultural coolie. In this regard, the following .two decisions can be taken into consideration for determining the income of the deceased:- .(a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/-per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. .(b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. -Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. .In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/-per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2004. In this case, the income of the deceased should have been fixed higher than Rs.2,400/-per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. .In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/-per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2004. In this case, the income of the deceased should have been fixed higher than Rs.2,400/-per month. Since the income fixed by the Tribunal is very very low, the higher multiplier of 16 can be justified. .(iv) Further, meagre amount has been granted for loss of consortium to the wife in a sum of Rs.5,000/-. For loss of love and affection to the two minor children a sum of Rs.4,000/- alone has been granted which is also very low. .(v) Considering all these aspects, the total compensation granted by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.3,18,200/-does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2007. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the respondents/claimants 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the same as ordered and apportioned by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.