ORDER : Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the ORDER :dated 29.04.2002 passed by Sri Mahender Narayan Singh, 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur by which he has granted a claim of Rs.500/- for cremation, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, hence in all, granted a compensation of Rs.58,000/- with interest of 9% till March, 2001 and 8% from 2001 as well as the advocate fee of Rs.250/- and advocate clerk fee of Rs.50/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the victim was a lady aged about 35 years and was vendor of vegetable. The only point raised and challenged that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is excessive low even when the victim was a lady dealing with the business of vegetables in addition to her role as a house wife and hence contend that Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the death of the victim by the accident from vehicle at the age of 35 years is excessive low and though the Tribunal considered the evidence of her husband that in the whole day she used to sell 30 – 40 Kgs of the vegetables. He has further stated that she used to purchase vegetables worth Rs.30 and use to sell vegetables for Rs.40/- and so she use to get the benefit of Rs.10/- per day and on this evidence itself assessed her income as Rs.10/- per day and assessed her monthly income as Rs.300/- per month and on that basis counted her income as Rs.36,000/- per year. However the learned Tribunal failed to consider that when it has come in evidence that she used to purchase and sell 30 to 40 Kgs. of vegetables. Now a day even in the year 2000 any vegetable was not worth Rs.1/- per Kg. to hold that she was selling 30-40 Kg it cannot be sold for Rs.30/- and hence there is some mistake in computing the compensation. Moreover, assessing the income at Rs.300/- per month in 1997 the year of accident is excessive low. 4. Leaned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the witnesses have stated that she was earning Rs.50-60 per day and sometimes Rs.100/- per day even earning of Rs.50 to Rs.60/- per day is less than the minimum wages. Moreover, assessing the income at Rs.300/- per month in 1997 the year of accident is excessive low. 4. Leaned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the witnesses have stated that she was earning Rs.50-60 per day and sometimes Rs.100/- per day even earning of Rs.50 to Rs.60/- per day is less than the minimum wages. However, in view of these evidence computing the income of the victim as even @ Rs.50/- per day, it will amounts to about 1500/- per month and this amount is also lower rate and computing it at the rate is not excessive. However, having regard to the evidence it can well computed the income of the victim, as Rs.1,500/- per month. However, the presumption of the income @ Rs.300 per month in the year 1997 itself is also excessive low and is unjust and is neither just nor reasonable hence computing her income @ Rs. 1,500/- per month held to be just and proper and the claimants are entitled for the claim @ Rs.1,500/- per month and hence computing the income @ Rs.1,500/- per month the annual income comes to be Rs.18,000/- per year. However, deducting 1/3rd with regard to the expenses on the part of the deceased, the annual savings for the family comes to be about Rs.12,000/- per year. Having regard to the fact that the age of the deceased has been found to be 35 years and hence multiplier of the 17 has rightly been applied by the lower court and hence the claim is assessed to the tune of Rs.2,04,000/- and hence the claimant is entitled for the claim. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, contended that Rs.58,000/- has already been paid and hence that amount be deducted from the amount computing as Rs.2,04,000/- and hence the amount of compensation is to the tune of Rs.1,46,000/- adding Rs.8,000/- granted by the Tribunal for loss of consortium, funeral and loss of estate the final claim to the tune of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum is allowed. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.