Judgment : R. Banumathi, Judge. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimants for the death of one Mr. K. Thyagarajan, the State Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal. 2. The brief facts are that on 22.04.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased Thyagarajan was proceeding along with the Claimants/wife and children, near K.R.P. Dam, Krishnagiri-Salem Junction Road, the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-29-0592 belonging to the Appellant-Corporation driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased and the Claimants were thrown out of the vehicle. In the accident, the deceased, his wife/First Claimant and son/Second Claimant have sustained severe injuries and they were taken to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where the deceased succumbed to injuries. A Criminal case was registered in Crime No.328 of 1999 on the file of Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A, I.P.C. The deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident. The deceased was working as an Assistant Soil Conversation Officer in Agricultural Engineering Department, Krishnagiri and earning a sum of 7,951/- per month as salary. Apart from that, the deceased was also running a music troupe and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Appellant-Transport Corporation, the Claimants have filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 19,15,121/- (restricted to Rs. 19,00,000/-). 3. In the Tribunal, on behalf of the Claimants, First Claimant examined herself as P.W.1, two Doctors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and one Sathyamurthy was examined as P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to P41 were marked. On the side of the Appellant-Transport Corporation, the driver was examined as R.W.1. 4. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and held that the Appellant-Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Taking into account the deceased was running a music troupe and earning some amount, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased would have spent the income from music troupe for his Personal Expenses and would have contributed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the family. Taking into account the deceased was running a music troupe and earning some amount, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased would have spent the income from music troupe for his Personal Expenses and would have contributed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the family. The Tribunal calculated the annual income of the deceased at Rs.96,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- x 12 = Rs.96,000/-) and adopting multiplier 15, calculated the annual loss of dependency at Rs.14,40,000/- (Rs.96,000/- x 15 = Rs. 14,40,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,50,000/- as under: Loss of Annual Dependency (Rs.96,000/- x 15): Rs. 14,40,000.00 Loss of Consortium to the First Claimant and loss of Love and Affection to Claimants 2 and 3: Rs. 10,000.00 Total: Rs. 14,50,000.00 5. It is not necessary for us to elaborate upon the manner of accident and fastening of liability upon the Appellant-Transport Corporation. It is for the reason that those findings were recorded in favour of the Claimants by the Tribunal and the question on negligence and liability of the Transport Corporation is also not seriously under dispute. Only the quantum of compensation awarded to the Claimants is under challenge. 6. Learned Counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly salary as Rs.8,000/- and taking the whole amount of Rs.8,000/- as Loss of Dependency/Contribution to the Family and Tribunal erred in not making any deduction for Personal Expenses. It was further submitted that absolutely there was no evidence to show that the deceased Thyagarajan was getting income by running music troupe and while so, the Tribunal erred in taking into account the income from the music troupe on saying that the deceased would have met his Personal Expenses from out of income by organizing music programmes. Learned Counsel would further submit that Loss of Income calculated by the Tribunal at Rs.14,40,000/- is very much excessive and on the higher side and prayed for reducing the same. 7. Drawing our attention to the documentary evidence Exs.P17 to P19, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Claimants submitted that there is ample evidence to show that the deceased Thyagarajan was running music troupe and was getting income and the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the income from the music troupe. 7. Drawing our attention to the documentary evidence Exs.P17 to P19, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Claimants submitted that there is ample evidence to show that the deceased Thyagarajan was running music troupe and was getting income and the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the income from the music troupe. It was further submitted that the deceased Thyagarajan was working as Assistant Soil Conservator in the Agricultural Department and he had further chances of promotion and the Tribunal had not taken into account the future prospects and if the future prospects is taken into account, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal would be reasonable. 8. The deceased Thyagarajan was working as Assistant Soil Conservator and was getting salary of Rs.7,951/-. P.W.4 – Sathyamurthy who is employed in the same Department has stated that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.7,951/-. His evidence is corroborated by Salary Certificate Ex.P12. 9. The deceased Thyagarajan was running music troupe. Exs.P15 and P16 are the certificates issued to deceased Thyagarajan for organizing music programmes. Even though the deceased Thyagarajan was running music troupe, no evidence was adduced to show that he was also earning income by organizing music programmes. Being a Government Servant, it is also not known whether the deceased Thyagarajan had obtained permission from his Department for running such music troupe and earning income. Since the deceased was working as a Government Servant in Agricultural Department, plea of the Claimants that Thyagarajan was earning income by running Music Troupe be countenanced. The Tribunal was not right in saying that the deceased was getting income from running Music Troupe and he would have met his Personal Expenses from out of the income so earned by him. 10. As we pointed out earlier, the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs.7,951/-and the Tribunal had rounded it off to Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal has taken the entire amount of Rs.8,000/- as Loss of Dependency/Contribution to the family. It is fairly well settled that while calculating the multiplier, the Courts will have to normally make 1/3rd deduction for Personal Expenses. It is also fairly well settled that while calculating income, the future prospects of the deceased person also should be taken into account. The deceased being employed as Assistant Soil Conservator, taking into account his qualification and the future prospects of promotion, the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. It is also fairly well settled that while calculating income, the future prospects of the deceased person also should be taken into account. The deceased being employed as Assistant Soil Conservator, taking into account his qualification and the future prospects of promotion, the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd amount for Personal Expenses i.e., Rs.3,000/-, Loss of Dependency to the family is calculated at Rs.6,000/- per month. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 42 years. As per the Second Schedule, for the age group of 40-45, proper multiplier to be adopted is 15. Adopting multiplier 15, the total Loss of Dependency/Loss of Income to the family is calculated at Rs.10,80,000/-(Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.10,80,000/-). 11. Insofar as conventional damages, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-as compensation for Loss of Consortium to the First Claimant and Loss of Love and Affection to the second and third Claimants. For the loss of consortium to the First Claimant/wife, Rs.10,000/- is awarded. Claimants 2 and 3 / son and daughter of the deceased Thyagarajan, who were then minors, have lost the love and affection of their father at the very young age. For the Loss of Love and Affection to the son and daughter/Claimants 2 and 3, compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500/-each) is awarded. For Funeral Expenses and for Loss of Estate, Rs.5,000/- is awarded under each head. 12. The Total Compensation awarded to the Claimants is reduced to Rs.11,25,000/-as under: Loss of Annual Dependency (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 15) : Rs. 10,80,000.00 Loss of Consortium to the First Claimants: Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of Love and Affection to Claimants 2 and 3 (Rs. 12,500/- x 2): Rs. 25,000.00 Funeral Expenses: Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of Estate: Rs. 5,000.00 Total: Rs. 11,25,000.00 The reduced amount of compensation is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro-rata basis as ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% and the same is maintained. 13. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri) in M.C.O.P. No.817 of 1999 dated 30.04.2001 is modified and the quantum of compensation is reduced to Rs. 11,25,000/-payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The reduced compensation is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro-rata basis as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. 11,25,000/-payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The reduced compensation is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro-rata basis as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. It was stated before us that the Appellant-Transport Corporation has already deposited a sum of Rs.17,61,642/-and as per the order dated 08.07.2003, Claimants 1 and 2 have withdrawn certain amount. Claimants 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them (deducting the amount already withdrawn by them). Third Claimant is also permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to her after obtaining necessary orders from the Tribunal declaring her as major. The Appellant-Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.