Judgment :- Cross-objectors in M.F.A. Crob.No.213 of 2006 were the petitioners in M.V.C. No. 3479 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City. The appellant in M.F.A. No.5202 of 2006 was the second respondent in the said petition, which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Thammanna, who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and died. The claim petition has been allowed in part and compensation of Rs. 6,20,000/- with interest at 6% has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal. Contending that the award is low, the petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have field the cross-objections. 2. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the records. 3. Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the learned member of the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, form agriculture and milk business and not noticing that the land possessed by the deceased still remains with the family and the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to a case where agricultural income is the source. The learned Counsel contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and hence the award is excessive. 4. Sri C. Puttaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the cross-objectors, on the other hand, contended that the learned member of the Tribunal has not passed a just award taking into consideration the income of the deceased, who was a sericulturist, agriculturist, horticulturist and was doing dairy farming, and was getting income of more than Rs.10,000/- per moth. The learned Counsel contended that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is very meagre and at any event, the award passed being on the lower side and not a just award, interference in the form of enhancement is called for. 5. Considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record, the point for consideration is “whether the Tribunal has passed a just award”? 6. Petitioner 1 before the Tribunal has deposed as P.W. 1. The Secretary of the Milk Producers Society has deposed as P.W. 2. 5. Considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record, the point for consideration is “whether the Tribunal has passed a just award”? 6. Petitioner 1 before the Tribunal has deposed as P.W. 1. The Secretary of the Milk Producers Society has deposed as P.W. 2. Exs.P.8 to P. 14 have been produced to show the avocation of the deceased. Undisputedly, Thammanna met with an accident on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tractor, sustained injuries and died. His wife and two young children, who are minors, filed the claim petition. P.W. 1 has deposed that her husband, at the time of accident/death, was 35 years old and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Ex.P.6, which is the post-mortem report, shows the age of the deceased as 35 years as on the date of death. Exs.P.10 and P.11 are the R.T.C. extracts, which show that the deceased was an agriculturists. Exs.P.12 to P.14 show that the deceased was a member of the Milk Producers Cooperative Society and was supplying milk and was receiving the payment. Ex. P.8 is the bank passbook of the deceased. Hence, the claim that the deceased was an agriculturist and milk vendor is substantiated. The evidence of P.W. 1 is backed by the documentary evidence, which is not under serious challenge. In addition, P.W. 2Secretary of the society, has deposed about the deceased being a member of the society and supplying milk to the society and the society having made payment for the supply of milk. The deceased was a permanent resident of Mudugere Village in Channapatna, wherein there is assured irrigation facility. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. 7. The deceased would have spent 1/3rd of the amount for himself and considering that there were three dependents i.e., wife and children, be would have definitely contributed the remaining 2/3rd to the family. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 and has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,00,000/-. In fact, the multiplier applicable in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009(6) SCC 121: 2009 AIR SCW 4992), for a person aged between 31-35 years is 16. The Tribunal has awarded under the conventional heads i.e., loss of consortium Rs. 6,00,000/-. In fact, the multiplier applicable in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009(6) SCC 121: 2009 AIR SCW 4992), for a person aged between 31-35 years is 16. The Tribunal has awarded under the conventional heads i.e., loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/-loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- and conveyance and funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-. The same is on the lower side. This Court in similar cases has been awarding Rs. 40,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 20,000/-. 8. Since the Tribunal has reckoned the income of the deceased based on the evidence of P.W. 1, which is backed by the documentary evidence, and has assessed the loss of dependency and has added conventional sums to the loss of dependency, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit. The cross-objectors are entitled to a marginal enhancement i.e., addition of Rs. 20,000/-. 9. In the result, I pass the following order: M.F.A. No. 5202 of 2006 stands dismissed. The amount in deposit in the appeal be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary action. Cross-objection No.213 of 2006 stands allowed and there shall be enhancement by Rs. 20,000/- i.e., addition to the award passed by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit in the Tribunal. The appellant in M.F.A. No. 5202 of 2006 shall deposit the balance amount in the Tribunal within a period of two months from today.