Judgment :- CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. Insurance Company is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal, granting a compensation of Rs.14,83,000/-. 2. The accident occurred on 23.12.2005. The claimants are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased Ganesan. Admittedly, as on the date of death, he was 40 years and five months old. The Tribunal pointed out that while the deceased was driving a two wheeler to Pollachi Main Road, the van, insured with the appellant herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident. The victim sustained injuries and died later. Based on the evidence of PW2 -an eyewitness, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the van driver was responsible for causing the accident. 3. As regards the claim of compensation, the claimants showed that the deceased owned lorries, four in number and he was earning income of Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal, however, held that out of four lorries, two lorries were in the name of the wife and two in the name of the deceased. The wife had sold three lorries after the demise of her husband and there was only one lorry. It was pointed out that after the demise of her husband, the lorry business had come to a grinding halt. Taking note of the above circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-and deducting 1/3rd, fixed the contribution at Rs.8,000/-per month. Taking note of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 15 and arrived at the pecuniary loss at Rs.14,40,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and consortium and a further sum of Rs.16,180.45 towards medical expenses. Finally, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation rounded off to Rs.14,83,000/-. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company is on appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the question raised before this Court is restricted to the award of compensation, particularly regarding the pecuniary loss. She pointed out that there was no evidence as regards the ownership of four lorries by the deceased as on the date of the accident and the multiplier adopted at 15 as against 14 is contrary to the Second Schedule. However, as regards the compensation awarded under other heads, she has no grievance. 5. She pointed out that there was no evidence as regards the ownership of four lorries by the deceased as on the date of the accident and the multiplier adopted at 15 as against 14 is contrary to the Second Schedule. However, as regards the compensation awarded under other heads, she has no grievance. 5. We do not think that there is any ground to accept the plea of the appellant herein. It is a matter of record that the appellant has not let in any contra evidence to dispute the evidence on the side of the claimants as regards the ownership of the lorries. The Tribunal pointed out that ExP15, ExP16, ExP17 and ExP28 were supporting the case of the claimants that the deceased was owning two lorries and two of the lorries were owned by the wife of the deceased – the first claimant. The Tribunal further pointed out from the evidence of PW1 and PW3 that after the demise of Ganesan, three of the lorries were sold, leaving with them with just one lorry and even with that, they could not get along with the business. Taking note of the above circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the income moderately at Rs.12,000/- and thus, after deducting 1/3rd, arrived at the pecuniary loss of Rs.14,40,000/-. We do not find any reason to disturb this award amount. 6. As regards the objection taken to the multiplier 15 adopted herein, taking note of the age of the deceased as 40 years and 5 months on the date of the accident and considering the fact that the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection was restricted only to Rs.20,000/- for two minor children, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the fair award granted by the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.