JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal questioning the quantum of award and decree dated 14.6.2004 made in MACTOP.No.687 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tirupattur. 2. The respondents 1 and 2/petitioners have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Ramakrishnan. The case of the claimants is that on 18.11.1996 at about 11.30 am, when the deceased Ramakrishnan was sitting on the right side of the driver in Tractor bearing Regn.No.23/Y/4208 after working as coolie for loading and unloading sand, brick, stone and other materials to NAIL Leather Company, Vaniyambadi under the 1st respondent in main O.P, the driver of the above said Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and Ramakrishnan fell down from the Tractor and the right side of the back wheel ran over him and he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in Ambur Bethcade Hospital for treatment but he died. The claimants have further stated that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and the deceased was a bachelor and he was working as a coolie and was earning Rs.3000/-per month and the claimants are parents of the deceased and they claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the owner/3rd respondent in the O.P and insurer of the above said Tractor/appellant herein. 3. The owner of the Tractor bearing Regn. No. 23/Y/4208, who is the first respondent in the O.P, remained exparte before the Tribunal itself. 4. On the side of the appellant-insurance company, has stated in the counter affidavit that the accident was not admitted and the driver of the tractor was not added as party and he was not having valid driving licence and the income of the deceased was not admitted and also stated that the claimants have not furnished any insurance particulars and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, have examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the respondents, have examined one witness as RW.1 and no document was marked. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, have examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the respondents, have examined one witness as RW.1 and no document was marked. 6. Considering the above said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and hence the respondents in the O.P are liable to pay compensation and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/-pm and age of the deceased as 20 years at the time of accident and awarded Rs.2,16,000/-as compensation to the claimants. As against the above said award, the insurance company, who is the 2nd respondent in the main O.P, has filed this appeal. The claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-appeal. 7. With regard to the negligence aspect, on the side of the claimants, have examined PW.2 Ekambaram as eye-witness to the occurrence and also marked Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P3-copy of M.V. Report, Ex.P4-copy of R.C. book of tractor, Ex.P5-copy of insurance policy and Ex.P6-driving licence of 1st respondent's vehicle driver. On careful reading of the above said oral and documentary evidence, reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver as stated in the petition. 8. On the side of the second respondent, RW.1 was examined to prove that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, since the deceased was traveling in the tractor and it is violation of policy condition. RW.1 has not deposed regarding negligence aspects and therefore there was no contra evidence on the side of the respondents with regard to negligence aspect and hence the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor's driver and respondents in main O.P are liable to pay compensation. 9. The appellant-insurance company has contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 9. The appellant-insurance company has contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, after detailed discussion, has finally held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and the above said fact was proved by oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimant and also proved that tractor was duly insured with the appellant/second respondent-insurance company and hence the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation. In this appeal, the above said finding is not challenged by the appellant. 10. As already stated, the appellant has challenged only the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/-pm without any positive evidence and wrongly adopted the multiplier of 16 on the basis of the age of the deceased instead of mother's age since the deceased was bachelor and also contended that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and hence prayed to reduce the compensation amount. 11. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, in the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was working as coolie and earning Rs.3000 p.m at the time of accident. But the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/-. Considering the period of accident, age and other factors, the above said monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is not considered as excessive as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/-and there is no need to interfere with the above finding. 12. Admittedly, the deceased was bachelor and therefore as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121), the age of the mother of the deceased is to be taken for calculation of loss of income. But, in this case the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased and not mother's age. But, in this case the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased and not mother's age. In the claim petition itself, the age of the mother was given as 45 and therefore the correct multiplier to be taken as 14, but the Tribunal has wrongly taken the multiplier as 16 instead of 14 as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 of monthly income for personal and living expenses. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovesaid 1/3 deduction is confirmed. Therefore, the loss of income is calculated as Rs. 1000 x 12 x 14 = Rs.1,68,000/-. With regard to other heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/-for transportation, which is considered as very low and therefore it is enhanced and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transportation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4000/-for funeral expenses and it is also considered as very low and hence Rs.8000/- is awarded for funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/-to the petitioners for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for loss of life. The Tribunal has awarded the above said huge amount without any basis as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant and therefore the abovesaid finding of the Tribunal is not correct. The Tribunal ought to have been awarded to the claimants towards loss of love and affection instead of loss of life and mental agony and therefore I am of the view that the claimants are not entitled to Rs.60,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/-for loss of life, but the claimants are entitled to Rs15,000/- each under the head of loss of love and affection. 14. Thus the award of the Tribunal is modified and the award of compensation is fixed as under: "Loss of income - Rs. 1,68,000.00 Transportation - Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of love and affection - Rs. 30,000.00 (Rs.15000 x 2) Funeral expenses - Rs. 8,000.00 Rs. 2,16,000.00 15. As already discussed, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,16,000/-with 9% interest per annum as compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the abovesaid award amount is to be confirmed and the appeal is to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It is reported that Rs.20% of the award amount has been already deposited. 8,000.00 Rs. 2,16,000.00 15. As already discussed, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,16,000/-with 9% interest per annum as compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the abovesaid award amount is to be confirmed and the appeal is to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It is reported that Rs.20% of the award amount has been already deposited. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of the award within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same as per share allotted in the Tribunal award on proper application before the Tribunal. No costs.