Judgment :- The Appellant/Third Respondent Insurance Company has preferred this appeal as against the award dated 20.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P. No.553 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore in awarding the compensation of Rs.31,10,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit, etc., 2. The Tribunal on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence had accepted the evidence of P.W.1/wife of the deceased (who was also travelled with the deceased) to the effect that the driver of the Tempo bearing Registration No.TN 38 C 1400 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for the happening of occurrence. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in holding that the driver of the tempo was responsible for the accident. 3. Respondents 1 to 4/claimants being the wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased, had preferred a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death of Kulandaikumaran being the husband of the first respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of respondent 4. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P32 were marked. On the side of appellant-insurance company, Ex.R1 was marked and no oral evidence was adduced. 5. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Third Respondent/Insurance Company the Tribunal viz., Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore, while passing the impugned award had erred in holding that the Appellant/Insurance Company was liable to pay an exorbitant compensation of Rs.31,10,000/- and as a matter of fact, the Tribunal was not correct in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.3,00,000/- per annum without any basis. 6. It is the further contention of the Appellant/Insurance Company that the business of the deceased Kulandaikumaran was continued to be run by Respondents 1 to 3/claimants and that income from the business had in fact increased and not decreased and this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the Tribunal in a real perspective. 7. 6. It is the further contention of the Appellant/Insurance Company that the business of the deceased Kulandaikumaran was continued to be run by Respondents 1 to 3/claimants and that income from the business had in fact increased and not decreased and this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the Tribunal in a real perspective. 7. That apart, the learned counsel for the Appellant projects a plea that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased had not earned any income by his mere physical presence and only after providing land, labour and capital he was able to earn such money as he was earning during his life time, lending his managerial services. 8. Further more, Respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 had assessed the value of the managerial services only at an extent of Rs.5,000/-per month as seen from Ex.P17 Partnership deed of the claimants in respect of the business of the deceased. 9. As a matter of fact, the agricultural lands even after the death of the deceased were still in possession of respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 and therefore the income from agriculture was being enjoyed by the claimants 1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3 without any decrease whatsoever and this was not taken note of or appreciated by the Tribunal. In short, the death of the deceased had no impact on the pecuniary benefits of Respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3. 10. Besides the above, a contention is put forward on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company that at least 30% of the income towards income tax which the deceased would have paid had he been alive was calculated by the Tribunal and therefore, this had resulted in an excessive award being passed against the Appellant/Insurance Company. Also the Tribunal had awarded higher sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to the first respondent/first claimant(wife). Even the award of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses was an excessive one. 11. Further more, the Tribunal also had awarded rate of interest at 9% per annum as against the prevailing bank rate as per the decision of the Supreme Court. 12. Also the Tribunal had awarded higher sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to the first respondent/first claimant(wife). Even the award of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses was an excessive one. 11. Further more, the Tribunal also had awarded rate of interest at 9% per annum as against the prevailing bank rate as per the decision of the Supreme Court. 12. The gist of the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company is that appeal will have to be allowed by this Court since the award at Rs.31,10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 13.06.2001 till 20.01.2005 etc., was an excessive and arbitrary one and this Court will have to interfere with the same, sitting in appellate jurisdiction. 13. The finding on the negligence of the Tribunal on the part of tempo traveller for the happening of the accident is not canvassed before this Court on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company. 14. The break up figure of the restricted claim of compensation of Rs.1 Crore made by Respondents 1 to 4/claimants as follows: Loss of earning from to .. Nil Loss of partial earnings from to .. Nil Transport to Hospital .. Rs. 5,000.00 Extra nourishment .. Nil Damages to clothings 0and articles .. Rs. 5,000.00 Others: (i)Funeral expenses .. Rs. 30,000.00 (ii)Loss of love and affection .. Rs. 5,00,000.00 (iii)Loss of consortium .. Rs. 10,00,000.00 (iv)Loss of future prospects of minor petitioners .. Rs. 15,00,000.00 Compensation for pain and suffering .. Rs. 10,00,000.00 Compensation for continuing or permanent disabilities, if any .. Nil Compensation for loss of earning power .. Rs. 60,00,000.00 = = = = = = = = Total .. Rs.1,00,40,000.00 = = = = = = = = (Restricted to Rs.1 Crore) 15. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/first claimant as P.W.1 had deposed that her deceased husband was doing business of Richie Pumps during his life time and after his untimely death in the accident, she continued to do the business by means of partnership and she is also getting a sum of Rs.5,000/-as income from the said business. Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents/claimants, Exs.P12 to P16 were marked to show that the deceased Kulandaikumaran was paying income tax for the period 1997-1998 to 2001-2002. Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents/claimants, Exs.P12 to P16 were marked to show that the deceased Kulandaikumaran was paying income tax for the period 1997-1998 to 2001-2002. As per Ex.P16 income account for the year 20012002 his aggregate income was Rs.2,97,800/-and he was also getting an income of Rs.2,28,510/- as per Ex.P15. A perusal of Exs.P12 to P16 unerringly point out that the deceased was getting sizeable income from the business Richie Pumps which he was doing in his individual capacity. The Tribunal, after taking into account also the profit and loss account of the Richie Pumps Firm for the year 2000-2001 viz., Exs.P18 and P19 etc., has fixed the loss of income in this regard at Rs.2,00,000/-. 16. The deceased was having 7.75 acres of land and this still continued even after his demise and the same are in possession and enjoyment of respondents 1 to 3/claimants. The Tribunal had determined a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards agricultural income. On a careful scrutiny of Exs.P12 to P19 we are of the considered view that the deceased was getting a sizeable income and in fact these documents show that he was a man of means and was coming up in life as a business man in a sound manner. Therefore, we determine the loss of income from his business at Rs.2,00,000/- as a fair and reasonable one. Though in regard to the agricultural income, the Tribunal had determined the sum at Rs.1,00,000/-we are not in entire agreement with the same. But considering the fact that even though the said agricultural land of 7.75 acres was still available with respondents 1 to 3/claimants yet in regard to the managerial expertise, business acumen and other things were available to his family viz., respondents 1 to 3/claimants and in this regard, we fix the reasonable and fair sum of Rs.60,000/-towards Loss of agricultural income as an Equitable relief. Taking the income at Rs.2,60,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses i.e. Rs.86,666/-, the annual contribution/pecuniary loss to the family is fixed at Rs.1,73,334/-, rounded off to Rs.1,73,400/- per annum. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 41 years. As per the Second Schedule, multiplier of 15 is adopted. Adopting multiplier of 15, the total pecuniary loss/loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.26,01,000/- (Rs.1,73,400/- x 15 = Rs.26,01,000/-) 17. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 41 years. As per the Second Schedule, multiplier of 15 is adopted. Adopting multiplier of 15, the total pecuniary loss/loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.26,01,000/- (Rs.1,73,400/- x 15 = Rs.26,01,000/-) 17. In regard to the loss of consortium though the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first respondent/first claimant (wife) of the deceased, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-in this regard. Towards loss of love and affection, we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to minor respondents 2 and 3/claimants. Towards funeral expenses, we are not disturbing the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all, respondents 1 to 4/claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.27,61,000/- as under: Pecuniary loss .. Rs. 26,01,000.00 Loss of consortium to the first claimant .. Rs. 50,000.00 Loss of love and affection to minor claimants 2 and 3 .. Rs. 1,00,000.00 Funeral expenses .. Rs. 10,000.00 = = = = = = = Total .. Rs.27,61,000.00 = = = = = = = 18. Since we find that the rate of interest at 9% fixed by the Tribunal is not commensurate with the dictum of the Supreme Court wherein the consistent view of it was only at 7.5% per annum, the rate of interest is fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 19. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.27,61,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. 20. Earlier by the order dated 11.08.2005 in C.M.P.No.13184 of 2005, a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited and the said amount is said to have been deposited. 19. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.27,61,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. 20. Earlier by the order dated 11.08.2005 in C.M.P.No.13184 of 2005, a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited and the said amount is said to have been deposited. From out of the deposited amount, the first respondent/first claimant (wife) was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-and the fourth respondent/mother was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-unconditionally and the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was directed to be invested in the name of minors in any Nationalised Bank falling within its jurisdiction for a period of three years and thereafter renewed periodically for every two years on an application to be taken out by either of the parties before it and the first respondent would be entitled to withdraw the interest accruing on such deposit once in three months. 21. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, claimants 1 and 4 i.e. widow and mother are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them, after deducting the amount already withdrawn by them. The second claimant Poornima appears to have attained majority. After obtaining necessary orders from the Tribunal declaring her as major, she is also permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to her. Insofar as the third claimant, entire compensation amount payable to him along with accrued interest shall be invested in a Nationalised Bank till he attains majority. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs.34,610/-. 22. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. Resultantly, the award dated 20.01.2005 in M.C.O.P.No.553 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2)), Coimbatore shall stand modified. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.