Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI,J 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.23,56,396/- awarded for the death of Manikandan in a road traffic accident on 11.3.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 11.3.2007 at about 12.30 P.M., deceased Manikandan was riding Bajaj M-80 bearing registration No.PY-02 B 3935 on Puduthurai Main Road along with his friend Ramesh. When he was nearing Kaliyana Sundaram House, Karaikal, the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.PY-02 5754 and PY-02 5755 respectively came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Bajaj M-80 motorcycle. Due to the impact, Manikandan and his friend Ramesh sustained multiple head injuries and Manikandan died on the spot. Deceased Manikandan was working as Chief Cook in Ship Management Limited, M.V. Bulk Leher, Liberia and was earning USD 15069 per annum. Regarding accident, a criminal case was registered against the tractor driver in Crime No.30 of 2007 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. of Traffic Police Station, Karaikal. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, the Claimants who are mother, brother and sisters have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance has filed the counter contending that the deceased Manikandan was not married and that the Claimants 2 to 4 are earning members and not dependent of the deceased and therefore, Claimants 2 to 4 have no right to maintain the Claim Petition. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and contended that the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- claimed by the Claimants is on the higher side. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Manimegalai examined herself as P.W.1. The Manager in Anglo East Ship Company, Mumbai viz., Vineeth was examined as P.W.2. Eye-witness (Murugan) was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P15 was marked on the side of Claimants. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.W.3-eye witness and Ex.P1-F.I.R. registered against the tractor driver, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.W.3-eye witness and Ex.P1-F.I.R. registered against the tractor driver, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Insofar as, quantum of compensation, Tribunal held that deceased Manikandan was working with M/s.Anglo Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai for four periods. Taking the notional income at USD 500 per month (Indian currency at Rs.24,500/-), Tribunal has calculated the loss of income at Rs.1,96,000/- per annum. Deducting one-third for personal expenses and holding that deceased had worked only eight months in a year, calculated the average at Rs.1,30,667/-. Adopting multiplier 18, Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.23,51,896/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.23,56,396/- as under:- Loss of dependency .... Rs.23,51,896.00 Funeral expenses .... Rs. 2,000.00 Loss of estate .... Rs. 2,500.00 Total ....Rs.23,56,396.00 6. In his evidence, P.W.3-Murugan has stated about the accident that the tractor driver drove the tractor and trailer in a rash and negligent manner. Evidence of P.W.3-eye witness and registration of Ex.P1-F.I.R. against the tractor driver are unassailable. Though Appellant-Insurance Company raised a ground in the Memorandum of Grounds that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, during the course of arguments, Appellant-Insurance Company restricted their argument and mainly challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Quantum of compensation - Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that Tribunal failed to appreciate that the 1st Claimant-mother alone was the dependent and that the Claimants 2 to 4, who are married sisters and earning brother cannot be treated as dependents. Learned counsel submitted that deceased Manikandan would have got duty on the Vessel only for about six months and while so, Tribunal erred in taking the income for eight months and that the compensation awarded towards loss of contribution is very high. Learned counsel would further submit that deceased was a bachelor and that Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier based on the age of the mother and that the proper multiplier to be adopted is "13" and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that deceased was a bachelor and that Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier based on the age of the mother and that the proper multiplier to be adopted is "13" and that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 8. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that as per Ex.P5-salary certificate, deceased was getting USD 15069 per annum and while so, Tribunal was not right in taking the monthly income at Rs.24,500/-and that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and therefore, prayed that the quantum of compensation awarded is not to be interfered with. 9. As is seen from Ex.P5-certificate, Manikandan has obtained Diploma in Management and Catering Technology. He also obtained Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting Certificate (Ex.P6) and also Personal Survival Techniques Certificate (Ex.P7) and Personal Safety and Social Responsibilities Certificate (Ex.P8). Manikandan was working as Chief Cook in M/s.Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai for four periods. In his evidence, P.W.2-Vineeth, Manager in M/s. Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai stated that deceased Manikandan was working as head cook in their company from 2004 to 2007 on contract basis. P.W.2 further stated that the contract was 9 to 10 months in a year and the salary given for the said period to the deceased is USD 15069 per annum. P.W.2 also produced Ex.P13-Visa copy. Ex.P14 is the service record of deceased Manikandan. 10. By perusal of Ex.P14-certificate, it is seen that deceased Manikandan was employed with M/s.Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai on contract basis as Chief Cook and sailed world wide trading Vessels managed by the Principal of M/s.Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai as under:- In Ex.P14, it is stated that during the last contract as Chief Cook, deceased Manikandan was earning the salary of USD 840 per month which is exclusive of over time. Ex.P15 is the salary certificate issued by Master of Vessel M.V.Bulk Leher certifying that deceased Manikandan has served as Chief Cook on the board M.V.Bulk Leher from 11.10.2005 to 07.08.2006 and during the said period, Manikandan was paid salary of USD 15069.00. 11. Contention of learned counsel for Claimants is that as per Ex.P15, the monthly income of Manikandan per month is USD 1173.45 i.e. Indian Currency Rs.57,499/-. 11. Contention of learned counsel for Claimants is that as per Ex.P15, the monthly income of Manikandan per month is USD 1173.45 i.e. Indian Currency Rs.57,499/-. Learned counsel would submit that assuming that deceased worked only for eight months, the annual income would come to Rs.4,59,992/-. It was further submitted that adopting multiplier "13", the loss of income to the family would come to Rs.39,86,597/-(Rs.4,59,992 x 13 x 2/3) and while so, Tribunal has awarded only Rs.23,51,896/-and submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded is less warranting no interference. 12. Under Ex.P14-certificate issued by M/s.Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, it is stated that deceased Manikandan was earning salary of USD 840 per month (excluding overtime). There is variation between Ex.P14-certificate and Ex.P15-salary certificate. Ex.P15-salary certificate appears to have been issued by Master of the Vessel M.V.Bulk Leher. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that there is no variation between Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 as the income stated in Ex.P14 is excluding the over time and urged us to make suitable additions towards over time and prayed to take the monthly income at USD 1173.45 per moth. 13. There is no evidence as to what was the actual over time which Manikandan has done. That apart over time is not a permanent one. Merely, based on the certificate issued by the Master of Vessel M.V.Bulk Leher, it cannot be held that Manikandan would have had over time work all through the period of his employment. In the light of the evidence adduced, it would be appropriate to take the income of the deceased based on Ex.P14-certificate at USD 840 per month. 14.Tribunal has fixed the notional income at USD 500. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that at the time of accident, one Dollar was valuing at Rs.49/-. Taking the income of the deceased Manikandan at Rs.24,500/-per month i.e. annual income at Rs.2,94,000/- and deducting one-third for personal expenses i.e. Rs.98,000/-, Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.1,96,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.16,333/-per month. Since deceased would have been on duty for eight months, Tribunal calculated the average income for one year at Rs.1,30,667/- (sic) [Rs.16,333 x 8]. At the time of accident, Deceased was aged 28 years. Based on the age of the deceased, Tribunal adopted multiplier “18” and calculated the “loss of dependency” at Rs.23,51,896/-. 15. Since deceased would have been on duty for eight months, Tribunal calculated the average income for one year at Rs.1,30,667/- (sic) [Rs.16,333 x 8]. At the time of accident, Deceased was aged 28 years. Based on the age of the deceased, Tribunal adopted multiplier “18” and calculated the “loss of dependency” at Rs.23,51,896/-. 15. Contention of Appellant-Insurance Company is that deceased was a bachelor and his mother, the 1st Claimant was aged 50 years. Further contention of Appellant is that based on the age of the 1st Claimant-mother, Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier “13” and that multiplier “18” adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. 16. As per the decision in 2008 AIR SCW 1238 [Ramesh Singh and another v. Satbir Singh and another], the choice of multiplier would depend upon the age of the deceased or of the Claimant whichever is higher. First Claimant-mother is aged 50 years. As per II Schedule to M.V. Act, for the age group 45-50 years, the proper multiplier to be adopted is "13". Therefore, taking the age of the mother (1st Claimant), the proper multiplier to be adopted is "13". 17. Though a lesser multiplier is adopted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal. As pointed out earlier, as per Ex.P14-certificate and Ex.P15-salary certificate, deceased was working as Chief Cook in M/s.Anglo-Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai and was earning average of USD 840 per month (excluding over time). In his evidence P.W.2 stated about the salary of the deceased at USD 840 per month excluding over time. In the light of Ex.P14-certificate and P.W.2's evidence, Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at USD 840 per month. That apart as per the decisions in SarlaVerma's case [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and SantoshDevi's case (2012 ACJ 1428), “future prospects” are also to be kept in view. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to take the income of the deceased at USD 840 per month. 18. While travelling in the ship as a Chief Cook, every day Manikandan cannot go back to the house and shared the food, amenities and other expenses along with the family members to save more. Being on duty on the Vessel, Manikandan has to spend for his food and other personal expenses being a bachelor. 18. While travelling in the ship as a Chief Cook, every day Manikandan cannot go back to the house and shared the food, amenities and other expenses along with the family members to save more. Being on duty on the Vessel, Manikandan has to spend for his food and other personal expenses being a bachelor. That apart being a Chief Cook, Manikandan has to necessarily wear proper attire and be presentable. Considering the nature of employment, in our considered view, one-third of the income i.e. USD 280 has to be deducted towards “personal expenses”. Thus the loss of contribution to the family is taken at USD 460 i.e. Rs.22,540/-(Rs.49 x 460 = Rx.22,540/-). Manikandan being a Chief Cook in the Ship would have been employed only for 6 – 8 months. Based upon Ex.P14-certificate and evidence of P.W.2, Tribunal was rightly held that deceased worked only for a maximum period eight months in a year. Taking the monthly income at USD 460 i.e. Rs.22,540/- (Rs.49 x USD 460 = Rs.22,540/-) per month for a period of eight months, the annual “loss of dependency” is calculated at Rs.1,80,320/- (Rs.22540 x 8 = Rs.1,80,320/-). Adopting multiplier “13”, the total “loss of dependency” is calculated at Rs.23,44,160/- (Rs.1,80,320 x 13 = Rs.23,44,160/-) 19. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- for “funeral expenses” and Rs.2,500/- for “loss of estate”. It is pertinent to note that the quantum of compensation awarded under those heads are very less. In such facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same. Accordingly, Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for “funeral expenses” is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-and Rs.2,500/- awarded by the Tribunal for “loss of estate” is enhanced to Rs.7236/-. BY marginally enhancing the conventional damages, the total compensation of Rs.23,56,396/- awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 20. Insofar as apportionment of compensation is concerned, Tribunal apportioned a sum of Rs.17,56,396/- to the 1st Claimant and Rs.2,00,000/- each to Claimants 2 to 4. Claimants 2 to 4 are grown up brother and sisters and also married and that Claimants 2 to 4 cannot be said to be the dependents on the deceased Manikandan. At best, they could be awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- each for their love and affection. Claimants 2 to 4 are grown up brother and sisters and also married and that Claimants 2 to 4 cannot be said to be the dependents on the deceased Manikandan. At best, they could be awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- each for their love and affection. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.23,56,396/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1 to 4 as follows:- 1st Claimant-mother is entitled to Rs.22,06,396/- with proportionate interest and Claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest. 21. In the result, the compensation of Rs.23,56,396/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.254 of 2008 dated 16.7.2009 on the file of Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam is confirmedand the appeal is dismissed. It was stated before us that Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited lump sum amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. From out of which, 1st Claimant is said to have withdrawn Rs.7,50,000/-. Claimants 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of compensation apportioned with proportionate accrued interest lying in the Tribunal, immediately after the receipt of copy of this judgment. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, Claimants 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation along with proportionate accrued interest. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. There is no order as to costs.