Judgment :- 1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of an award of Rs.8,09,160/-, in respect of death of a 52 years old employee in MCOP.No.284 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Vellore. 2. The accident is admitted, liability is admitted and only the quantum is questioned. Even on the quantum, the main ground of attack was that the lower court without taking into consideration that the person would retire at the age of 58 has applied the multiplier theory throughout whereas after retirement, his salary would be reduced and the pension would be only 50%. This calculation has not been done by the Court below. This is the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that even though he may retire, that does not mean that amount is lost. Nowadays, the pension is almost 60% and he would have also earned outside after retirement. Hence, if this point is taken into consideration, the calculation made is correct and he would have earned as that of his time in service. Therefore, the award granted by the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and correct and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. Heard both parties. The short point for consideration in the appeal is whether the amount granted by the court below is fair, reasonable and correct. 5. The accident is admitted, liability is admitted. The deceased is aged about 52 years old. He was employed in a Government Aided Private College at Vellore. It is a permanent job. He was earning Rs.9,070/- per month. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 are the salary certificates and Ex.P.6 is S.S.L.C. book of the deceased Loganathan. P.W.2 is the employer who has been examined for the proof of salary as well as the age. Since it is very clear that the deceased is a teacher, it is also very clear that he would have retired at the age of 58 and even P.W.2 has certified that the deceased would have retired on 30.06.2010. Therefore, it is very clear that upto 30.06.2010, he would been earning the full amount of Rs.9,070/- along with any future increments or enhancement. Therefore, it is very clear that upto 30.06.2010, he would been earning the full amount of Rs.9,070/- along with any future increments or enhancement. Thereafter, he would have been getting only the pension which is almost equivalent to only 50% in the full amount. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the lower court applied the correct multiplier of 11 but automatically the claimant will not get the full amount. 6. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 73 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shanthi Pandiyan and others, it is very clear that the Court has to take into account the fact of retirement and thereafter 50% of the income has to be fixed. If the calculation is worked out according to the above referred decision, then the amount works out as follows: Since the deceased was 52 years at the time of the occurrence, for the first six years upto the date of retirement, the original salary of Rs.9,000/- per month has to be taken. Hence, deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, the contribution to his family will come to Rs.6,000/-. Hence applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of income for the first six years comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 X 6) For the rest 5 years if 50% of Rs.9,000/- is taken as the pension per month, it works out to Rs.4,500/- and if 1/3 is deducted towards his personal income, the contribution to his family will be Rs.3,000/-per month. Hence for the rest 5 years the loss of income works out to Rs.1,80,000/-(Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 5). Hence, the total loss of income will be Rs.4,32,000/- + Rs.1,80,000/- = Rs.6,12,000/-. Hence, the sum of Rs.7,98,160/- granted by the lower court towards loss of income is reduced to Rs.6,12,000/-. 7. Under other heads, the lower court has granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cremation which I feel is on the lower side. Hence, it is increased to Rs.5,000/- as against the sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the lower court. The lower court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection, which I feel is fair, reasonable and correct. The lower court has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head loss of consortium. The lower court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection, which I feel is fair, reasonable and correct. The lower court has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head loss of consortium. At this point, the learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that the body was transported from Thirupati to Vellore. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transport charges. 8. In the result, the award amount is modified as follows: 1. for loss of income: Rs.6,12,000/- 2. for transport charges: Rs. 5,000/- 3. for cremation: Rs. 5,000/- 4. for loss of love and affection: Rs. 5,000/- 5. for loss of consortium: Rs. 10,000/- Total: Rs.6,37,000/- 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.8,09,160/- to Rs.6,37,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Thirty Seven Thousand Only) along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit of compensation. 10. It is represented that the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited only 50% of the original award amount. Hence, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, less the amount already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.