JUDGMENT :- 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2557, 2558 and 2662 of 2010 are preferred by the claimants against the common award dated 01.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P. Nos.604, 605 & 603 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 2080 to 2082 of 2010 are preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited against the common award dated 01.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.603, 604 & 605 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Salem, respectively. 2. Since these appeals arise out of the common award made in M.C.O.P.Nos.604, 605 and 603 of 2006, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 27.02.2006, at about 03.00 p.m., the deceased Krishnaraj (in C.M.A.No.2557 of 2010), Mahendran (in C.M.A.No.2558 of 2010) and Rajeswaran (in C.M.A.No.2662 of 2010) were travelling in the Ford Escort car, bearing Registration No.TN-39-J-2550 from Salem to Chennai and the car was driven by Mahendran. When the car was nearing Bangalore-Chennai Bye-Pass Road, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brake and hit against the parked lorry bearing Registration No.AP-03-T-2192. Due to the said impact, Krishnaraj, Mahendran died on the spot and Rajeswaran sustained fatal injuries and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Vellore, where he died. The claimants are the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased in all the appeals. They claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The said lorry was insured with the appellant in C.M.A.Nos.2080 to 2082 of 2010-United India Insurance company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. On whose negligence the accident had occurred? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, how much?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and driver of the lorry and fixed the liability on the part of the lorry driver at 75% and on the part of the car driver at 25%. The said lorry was insured with the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited (in C.M.A.Nos.2080 to 2082 of 2010). The said lorry was insured with the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited (in C.M.A.Nos.2080 to 2082 of 2010). The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% are as follows:- Sl.No. Head under which amount awarded M.C.O.P. No.604 of 2006/CMA. No.2557/2010/ C.M.A.No.2081 of 2010 M.C.O.P. No.605 of 2006/CMA. No.2558/ 2010/C.M.A.No.2082 of 2010 M.C.O.P. No.603 of 2006/CMA.No. 2662/ 2010/C.M.A.No.2080/2010 1. Loss of Income 8,14,995.00 5,85,000.00 7,20,000.00 2. Transport & Funeral expenses 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 3. Loss of consortium 25,000.00 20,000.00 30,000.00 4. Loss of love and affection 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 Total Rs. 8,77,495.00 6,42,500.00 7,87,500.00 Therefore, The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation of 75% of the award amount. Balance amount of 25% award amount, the claimants in C.M.A.No.2558 of 2010/C.M.A.No.2082 of 2010 is not entitled to claim against the owner of the car since the deceased himself caused the accident. In respect of other claimants in C.M.A.No.2557 of 2010/C.M.A.No.2081 of 2010, C.M.A.No.2662 of 2010/C.M.A.No.2080 of 2010 are concerned, they are entitled to claim against the owner of the car. Aggrieved by the awards, the claimants filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2557, 2558 and 2662 of 2010 and the insurer filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2080 to 2082 of 2010. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants (in C.M.A.Nos.2557, 2558 and 2662 of 2010) submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is very low and meagre sum of compensation. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited (in C.M.A.Nos.2080 to 2082 of 2010) submitted that the Tribunal wrongly fixing the liability on the insurance company at 75% and the owner of the car at 25%. It is also stated that the finding given by the Tribunal is not based on valid material, the lorry was parked only on the side of the road. The driver of the car hit behind the lorry. It is also stated that the finding given by the Tribunal is not based on valid material, the lorry was parked only on the side of the road. The driver of the car hit behind the lorry. Further the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P30 were marked. On the side of the respondents/Insurance companies, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. Pws.1 and 2 are the wife of the deceased. PW-3 Dhanaraj is the owner of the lorry. PW4-Kumaresan, who is an eye witness to the accident. PW-5 Sivasankar who is the Officer of the employer of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the post mortem report. Ex.P3 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P4 is the +2 mark sheet. Ex.P5 is the conduct certificate. Ex.P6 is the certificate showing disbursement of bonus. Ex.P7 is the U.T.I. Account table. Ex.P8 is the Pan card. Ex.P9 is the Income tax report. Ex.P10 is the Post mortem certificate. Ex.P11 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P12 is the School Transfer certificate. Ex.P13 is the M.B.A. Certificate. Ex.P14 is the B.Tech certificate. Ex.P15 is the Income tax Department's letter and Pan card. Ex.P16 is the Income tax report. Ex.P17 is the Bank account details. Ex.P18 is the Registration certificate. Ex.P19 is the Saral Form 2D-2005-2006. Ex.P20 is the Bank Account. Exs.P21 and P22 are the Income tax account details. Ex.P23 is the Bonus certificate. Ex.P24 is the Post mortem report. Ex.P25 is the Legal heir certificate. Ex.P26 is the Mark sheet. Ex.P27 is the Bonus certificate. Ex.P28 is the F.T.F.C. Bank Account details. Ex.P29 is the Income tax details. Ex.P30 is the Permanent Account card. RW-1 Arunkumar, who is an officer in the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited. RW-2 T.Rajendran, who is an officer in the United India Insurance Company. RW-3 Ranganathan, who is an officer from the regional transport office. Ex.P27 is the Bonus certificate. Ex.P28 is the F.T.F.C. Bank Account details. Ex.P29 is the Income tax details. Ex.P30 is the Permanent Account card. RW-1 Arunkumar, who is an officer in the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited. RW-2 T.Rajendran, who is an officer in the United India Insurance Company. RW-3 Ranganathan, who is an officer from the regional transport office. Ex.R1 is the Investigation report. Ex.R2 is the Insurance policy. Ex.R3 is the Identity card. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and the driver of the lorry and fixed the liability on the part of the car driver at 25% and on the part of the lorry driver at 75% and accordingly, The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company vehemently contended that the lorry was parked only in the service lane and therefore, it cannot be held that there is negligence on the part of the lorry. Further it was held that the driver of the car does not possess valid driving licence and the said driver of the car possessed licence only to drive the two wheeler. PW4-Kumaresan has stated in his evidence that while he was proceeding in his scooter, he saw that a lorry was parked without any danger light and the same was not parked in the service lane and at that time, the car came and dashed against the lorry. But he has not lodged the First Information Report. But in his cross examination, he stated that the roads are so wide and it is a four lane road, and easily a car can go. Further, it is seen that the First Information Report was lodged by one Sasi kumar. But he was not examined by either parties. In the First Information Report, it is stated that while he was staying in the room, he heard the noise and then came to the accident spot and saw the car dashed against the lorry. It is also pertinent to note that the driver and the cleaner of the lorry were not examined. But the accident happened at the early morning 3 O' clock. It is also pertinent to note that the driver and the cleaner of the lorry were not examined. But the accident happened at the early morning 3 O' clock. After considering the facts that the roads are very wide and there is enough space to go two vehicles without any difficulty and also the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed 75% liability on the lorry and 25% on the car. From the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the driver of the car would have easily seen the lorry, which was parked in the service lane and if he was precautions, he would have avoid the accident and therefore, it is reasonable to fix the liability of 60% on the lorry and 40% on the driver of the car as against 75% and 25% respectively fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, as the said lorry was insured with the United India Insurance Company, they are liable to pay 60% and the balance 40% fixed on the owner of the car. 7. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 997, the Apex Court has considered the relevant factors to be taken into consideration before awarding compensation and held as follows:- "7. Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of Courts Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance V. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. (1951) AC 601 and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies V. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries ltd., (1942) AC 601. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 : (1994) 2 SCC 176 . After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas (supra). "In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death. After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas (supra). "In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of the death. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have live or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether." " The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year’s purchase." "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." "It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." "It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years — virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 — and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible." In UP State Road Transport Corporation V. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 , this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies method followed in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas (supra), stated thus: "In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life span taken. That is the reason why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when tribunals/courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance method without making deduction for imponderables..... However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when tribunals/courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance method without making deduction for imponderables..... Under the formula Advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependants of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier"(emphasis supplied) 8. In the case of SYED BASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS VS. MOHAMMED JAMEEL AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225, the Apex Court has held as follows:- "13. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining “the amount of compensation which appears to be just”. However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. 14. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 15. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas2, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed that: (SCC p.181, para 5) “5. … The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ‘would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing’. … The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society ‘would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing’. The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the ‘law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales’.” At the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 18. The question as to what factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to a dependant came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami4, with reference to a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus: (AIR p.1) “In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained.” 19. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas case, SCC p.182, para 9) “9. Taking note of the afore extracted observations in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. in Susamma Thomas it was observed that: (Susamma Thomas case, SCC p.182, para 9) “9. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g.the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.” 20. Thus, for arriving at a just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants at the time of his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of estimate or it may partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalising it by an appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An appropriate multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration several imponderable factors. Since in the present case there is no dispute in regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary to dilate on the issue." After considering the principles enunciated in the judgments cited supra, let me consider the facts of the present case. C.M.A.Nos.2557 and 2081 of 2010:- 9. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years. In the evidence of PW.2, she stated that the deceased was working as Distributor in Tianji Tianji India Ltd., Chennai and was earning not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. There is no concrete evidence to prove the same. Exs.P21 and P22 are the income tax returns of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased at Rs.72,443/-. In the evidence of PW.2, she stated that the deceased was working as Distributor in Tianji Tianji India Ltd., Chennai and was earning not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. There is no concrete evidence to prove the same. Exs.P21 and P22 are the income tax returns of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased at Rs.72,443/-. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of Rs.18,110/-(Rs.72,443/- x ¼) towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.54,333/- (Rs.72,443 – Rs.18,110/-) as annual contribution to the deceased's family. The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age of the deceased, adopted the multiplier of 15' and arrived at a loss of income at Rs.8,14,995/- (Rs.54,333/- x 15). There is no dispute regarding the monthly as well as the annual income fixed by the Tribunal and also deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses. Hence the amount awarded towards loss of income is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards Transport and Funeral expenses. Hence the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of deceased, who is aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love and affection. There are two minor children and parents of the deceased. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.65,000/- as against Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. The accident occurred on 27.02.2006. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident, I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 8,14,995/- Transport and Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 8,14,995/- Transport and Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 65,000/- -------------------- Total Rs.9,14,995/- -------------------- The liability of the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited at 60% works out to Rs.5,48,997/-. For the balance 40% compensation of Rs.3,65,998/- is concerned, the claimants are entitled to proceed against the owner of the car viz., Krishnakumar. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.5,48,997/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. 10. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited that 50% of the award amount has already been deposited as per order of this Court dated 19.08.2010. The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,48,997/-, less the amount, already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn on making proper application. In respect of the minor shares viz., claimants 2 and 3, the Tribunal is directed to invest same, in a fixed deposit, in any one of the nationalised banks, until they attained majority and renewable thereafter, under reinvestment scheme. The mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw their interest once in three months on making proper application. C.M.A.Nos.2558 and 2082 of 2010:- 11. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years. In the evidence, the wife of the deceased stated that the deceased was working as Distributor in Tianji Tianji India Ltd., Chennai and was earning not less than Rs.40,000/- per month. There is no concrete evidence to prove the same. Exs.P27, P28 and P29 are the F.T.F.C. Bank Account details, Income Tax return details and Permanent Account card of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/-. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x ¼) towards personal expenses and the Tribunal has taken the balance sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.60,000 – Rs.15,000/-) as annual contribution to the deceased's family. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/-. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x ¼) towards personal expenses and the Tribunal has taken the balance sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.60,000 – Rs.15,000/-) as annual contribution to the deceased's family. The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age of the deceased, adopted the multiplier of 13' and arrived at a loss of income at Rs.5,85,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 13). There is no dispute regarding the monthly as well as the annual income fixed by the Tribunal and also deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses. Hence the amount awarded towards loss of income is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards Transport and Funeral expenses. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of deceased, who is aged about 36 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love and affection. There are two minor children and parents of the deceased. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.65,000/- as against Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. The accident occurred on 27.02.2006. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident, I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 5,85,000/- Transport and Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 65,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 6,80,000/- -------------------- The liability of the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited at 60% works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. The claimants are not entitled, balance 40% compensation since the deceased himself caused the accident. 5,85,000/- Transport and Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 65,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 6,80,000/- -------------------- The liability of the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited at 60% works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. The claimants are not entitled, balance 40% compensation since the deceased himself caused the accident. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- alone with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. 12. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited that 50% of the award amount has already been deposited as per order of this Court dated 19.08.2010. The appellant- United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,08,000/- less the amount already deposited with interest at 7.5% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn on making proper application. In respect of the minor shares viz., claimants 2 and 3, the Tribunal is directed to invest the same, in a fixed deposit, in any one of the nationalised banks, until they attained majority and renewable thereafter, under reinvestment scheme. The mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw their interest once in three months on making proper application. C.M.A.Nos.2662 and 2080 of 2010:- 13. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years. In the evidence, the wife of the deceased stated that the deceased was working as Distributor in Tianji Tianji India Ltd., Chennai and was earning not less than Rs.60,000/- per month. There is no evidence to prove the same. Exs.P6, P7 and P9 are the Certificate, U.T.I. Account details and Income tax report of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/-. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x ¼) towards personal expenses and taken the balance sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.60,000 – Rs.15,000/-) as annual contribution to the deceased's family. The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age of the deceased, adopted the multiplier of 16' and arrived at a loss of income at Rs.7,20,000/-(Rs.45,000/- x 16). The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age of the deceased, adopted the multiplier of 16' and arrived at a loss of income at Rs.7,20,000/-(Rs.45,000/- x 16). There is no dispute regarding the monthly as well as the annual income fixed by the Tribunal and also deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses. Hence, the amount awards loss of income is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards Transport and Funeral expenses. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of deceased, who is aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.35,000/-as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of love and affection. There are two minor children and parents of the deceased. Hence, the amount awarded under this head is very low and it would be reasonable to award Rs.65,000/- as against Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. The accident occurred on 27.02.2006. Keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest at the time of the accident, I feel that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 7,20,000/- Transport and Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 35,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 65,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 8,25,000/- -------------------- The liability of the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited at 60% works out to Rs.4,95,000/-. For the balance 40% compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- is concerned, the claimants are entitled to proceed against the owner of the car viz., Krishnakumar. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.4,95,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. 14. For the balance 40% compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- is concerned, the claimants are entitled to proceed against the owner of the car viz., Krishnakumar. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.4,95,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. 14. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited that 50% of the award amount has already been deposited as per order of this Court dated 19.08.2010. The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,95,000/- less the amount already deposited with interest at 7.5% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn on making proper application. In respect of the minor shares viz., claimants 2 and 3, the Tribunal is directed to invest same, in a fixed deposit, in any one of the nationalised banks, until they attained majority and renewable thereafter, under reinvestment scheme. The mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw their interest once in three months on making proper application. 15. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.