Judgment R.BANUMATHI,J 1. Challenge in this appeal is the Order in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 [09.08.2008] on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Sankari awarding compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- for the death of deceased Seriyam in the road traffic accident on 27.01.2006. 2. Brief facts are that on 27.01.2006 at about 8.30 P.M., deceased Seriyam was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-30 T 0464 from Erode to Tiruchengode. When he was nearing Thokkavadi Muniappan Kovil in Tiruchengode Erode Main Road, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. TN-28 E 1050 belonging to the 6th Respondent and insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased motorcycle causing fatal injuries to him. Regarding the accident, criminal case was registered in Crime No.31 of 2006 under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC of Tiruchengode Rural Police Station against the bus driver. Deceased Seriyam was holding Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence and was working in Saudi Arabia and was earning Rs.1,00,000/-per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the family has lost the support, wife, children and parents of deceased Seriyam have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter denying the negligent driving of the bus driver. Appellant-Insurance Company averred that at the time of accident, the deceased Seriyam who was riding the two wheeler was trying to cross the speed breakerand he was unbalanced with the two wheeler and hit against the protruded speed breaker and fell on the road and sustained injuries and thus the accident has occurred due to the negligent riding of the deceased. Appellant-Insurance Company has also denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Asmabi examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness Periyasamy was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of Appellant-Insurance Company, the then Administrative Officer of Appellant-Insurance Company, Salem Zone [V.Venkatesan] was examined as R.W.1. S.Ravichandran, the then Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Salem was examined as R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and evidence of P.W.2-Periyasamy, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. S.Ravichandran, the then Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Salem was examined as R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and evidence of P.W.2-Periyasamy, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Deceased Sariyam was working as driver in Saudi Arabia and getting 2500 Riyals till October 2005. Based upon Ex.A10-salary certificate and oral evidence of PW1-Asmabi, Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.27,500/-. Deducting one-third for personal expenses and adopting multiplier "13", Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.28,60,000/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- to the Claimants. 6. Heard both. The Appellant-Insurance Company challenges the award both on the grounds of negligence as well as quantum. 7. P.W.2-Periyasamy while proceeding in his bicycle at about 5.00 P.M. on 27.01.2006, he witnessed the accident. In his evidence, P.W.2 has clearly spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver who was driving the college bus bearing registration No. TN-28 E 1050. In his evidence, P.W.2 has clearly spoken that without proper signa; ling, the bus driver had applied the brakes and due to sudden stoppage of the bus, deceased who was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No. TN30 T 0464 hit on the back side of the bus and that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Even though, Appellant-Insurance Company has denied about his negligence and manner of accident, the First Information Report (Ex.A1), criminal case in Crime No.31 of 2006 was registered only against the bus driver. Like wise, Ex.A5-charge sheet in the criminal case was also laid against the bus driver prima facie indicats that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 8. Before the Tribunal, Appellant-Insurance Company has taken the defence that deceased Seriyam did not have valid driving licence. In his evidence, R.W.2 has stated that deceased did not have a valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler and that his driving licence expired on 23.04.2004. Even though, deceased Seriyam did not have driving licence for driving the two wheeler, he had obtained General Driving Licence in Saudi Arabia [Ex.A12]. In his evidence, R.W.2 has stated that deceased did not have a valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler and that his driving licence expired on 23.04.2004. Even though, deceased Seriyam did not have driving licence for driving the two wheeler, he had obtained General Driving Licence in Saudi Arabia [Ex.A12]. Pointing out that the deceased had obtained General Driving Licence in Saudi Arabia, Tribunal negatived the defence plea that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler. Based upon the evidence of P.W.2 and pointing out the registration of criminal case against the driver of the bus, Tribunal rightly held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the insurer [Appellant-Insurance Company] and the insured [6th Respondent owner of the vehicle] are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. Quantum of compensation - Deceased Seriyam was having Heavy Vehicle Driving licence and was working in Saudi Arabia under a Contractor. Ex.A12 is the General Driving Licence of deceased Seriyam issued by Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Interior. In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that her husband was getting more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Ex.A10 is the salary certificate issued by Muneef Fazullullah Al - Muthairy Est [For General Contracting], Saudi Arabia -employer of the deceased. It is seen from Ex.A10-salary certificate the deceased was getting salary of 2500 Riyals. One Riyal was then equivalent to Indian currency at Rs.11.25. Deceased was working as driver in Saudi Arabia till October 2005. Based on Ex.A10-salary certificate, Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at 2500 Riyals i.e. Indian currency at Rs.27,500/-per month. 10. Deceased Seriyam worked in Saudi Arabia till October 2005. After his return to India, he was working in his father's tea shop. Learned counsel for Appellant has contended that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income at Rs.27,500/- and loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal at Rs.28,60,000/- is arbitrary and without basis. 11. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that her husband has come out to India and later he was to go back to Saudi Arabia. Exs.P8 and P9 are the Postports of deceased Seriyam. It is seen from Exs.P8 and P9, Passport is valid up to 2012. 11. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that her husband has come out to India and later he was to go back to Saudi Arabia. Exs.P8 and P9 are the Postports of deceased Seriyam. It is seen from Exs.P8 and P9, Passport is valid up to 2012. Since the deceased had a valid Passport up to 2012 and also General Driving Licence issued in Saudi Arabia, in all probability, deceased would have later gone back to Saudi Arabia and continued his employment. Tribunal has taken the income at 2500 Riyals i.e. Indian currency at Rs.27,500/- per month. Deceased was working in Saudi Arabia only on contract basis and therefore, he may or may not have continued his job for quite long time. In such circumstances, in our considered view, the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.27,500/- per month is excessive. When deceased Seriyam was working in Saudi Arabia, the income as it is cannot be fixed based upon the salary drawn in Saudi Arabia. It has to be struck between the salary drawn in abroad and Indian standards. Since the deceased had General Driving Licence for driving the heavy vehicles, it would be appropriate to fix his income at Rs.20,000/- per month and the annual income is calculated at Rs.2,40,000/- [Rs.20,000 x 12 = Rs.2,40,000/-]. 12. Deduction towards personal expenses -Since deceased Sariyam was working in abroad [Saudi Arabia], taxes and other charges payable in the foreign country will have to be taken into account. While working in abroad, the cost of living would have been more. Deceased Sariyam would have spent considerable amount for travelling to his work place and work attire, warm clothes etc. Deducting one-third for personal expenses, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.1,60,000/-[Rs.2,40,000 w 3 = Rs1,60,000/-]. 13. Even though in the Claim Petition age of the deceased is stated "35" years, in her evidence P.W.1 has admitted that at the time of accident her husband was aged "45" years. It is seen from Ex.A9-Passport, we find the date of birth of deceased is stated as 30.06.1960. Date of accident is 27.06.2006. Thus at the time of accident the deceased was completed "45" years. For the age group of 45 -50 years, as per the Second Schedule to M.V. Act, the proper multiplier to be applied is "13". It is seen from Ex.A9-Passport, we find the date of birth of deceased is stated as 30.06.1960. Date of accident is 27.06.2006. Thus at the time of accident the deceased was completed "45" years. For the age group of 45 -50 years, as per the Second Schedule to M.V. Act, the proper multiplier to be applied is "13". Having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the Tribunal was justified in adopting multiplier "13" and the same is maintained. Adopting multiplier "13", the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.20,80,000/- [Rs.1.60,000 x 13 = Rs.20,80,000/-]. 14. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for "loss of consortium". Since the 1st Claimant-wife had lost her husband at the age of 31 years, it would be appropriate to award Rs.35,000/-for "loss of consortium". Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each to the Claimants 2 to 5 for "loss of love and affection". The Claimants who are children and parents of the deceased have lost the affection of the deceased, compensation for ‘loss of love and affection’ is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-each. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for "funeral expenses", which we feel is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 15. In modification, the total compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.22,05,000/- as under:- Loss of dependency: Rs.20,80,000.00 (Rs.1,60,000/- x 13) Loss of consortium: Rs. 35,000.00 Loss of love and affection: Rs. 80,000.00 (Rs.20,000/- each to Claimants 2 to 5) Funeral expenses: Rs. 10,000.00 Total: Rs.22,05,000.00 16. The reduced compensation is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1 to 5 as follows:- (i) Rs.10,05,000/- to 1st Claimant-wife; (ii) Rs.4,00,000/- each to minor Claimants 2 and 3-children; (iii) Rs.2,00,000/- each to Claimants 4 and 5-parents. The interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is also in order with the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court and the same is maintained. 17. In the result, the compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 dated 09.08.2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Sankari is reduced to Rs.22,05,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit and the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. 17. In the result, the compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 dated 09.08.2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Sankari is reduced to Rs.22,05,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit and the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. It was stated before us as per the order in M.P.No.1 of 2009 dated 26.03.2009, Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited Rs.15,00,000/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Sankari. As per order in M.P.No.1 of 2011 dated 24.02.2011, 1st Claimant-wife was permitted to withdraw Rs.6,00,000/- and Claimants 4 and 5-parents were permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/-each and the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- payable to the minors was ordered to be invested in a nationalised bank under reinvestment scheme. It was stated before us, though Claimants 1, 4 and 5 were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited, the Claimants 1, 4 and 5 have not withdrawn the amount and the same is lying in Court deposit. Claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw the amount as apportioned in M.P.No.1 of 2011 dated 24.02.2011 along with accrued interest immediately. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance reduced compensation along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, Claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective share along with proportionate accrued interest. The share in respect of minor Claimants 2 and 3 is ordered to be invested in any one of the nationalised bank for a period of two years. Both the Claimants 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share as and when they attain majority. 1st Claimant-mother is permitted to withdraw the accrued periodical interest on the minor's deposit directly from the Bank once in three months.