Judgment :- T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Virudhachalam in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2006 dated 02.12.2006. Respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants is as follows: On 14.03.2005 at about 8.30 hours, when the deceased Thirumoorthy was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN 31 L 7902 on Trichy to Chennai Road, near Cheppakkam, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN 09 AC 4725 belonging to the fourth respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries on his way to the hospital. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.103 of 2005 on the file of Veppoor Police Station for the offence under Sections 273 and 304(A) I.P.C. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the claimants viz., mother, wife and minor sons of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. 2. The appellant insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing the counter interalia contending that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased in driving his motorcycle and that the claim is excessive. 3. Before the Tribunal, the second claimant viz., the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. Eye witness - Gengachalam was examined as P.W.2. One Ramasubban was examined as P.W.3 and Elumalai was examined as P.W.4. On the side of claimants, Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the appellant, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. The Tribunal framed two questions for consideration as to whether the claimants were entitled for compensation and who is liable to pay the said compensation and what would be the quantum of compensation payable. 4. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the loss of income at Rs.20,000/- per month and by adopting the multiplier 13, awarded the total compensation of Rs.31,75,000/- as under: Loss of income .. Rs.31,20,000.00 (Rs.20,000/- x 12 x 13) Loss of consortium .. Rs. 30,000.00 Loss of love and affection to claimants 3 and 4 (Rs.10,000/- x 2) .. Rs. Rs.31,20,000.00 (Rs.20,000/- x 12 x 13) Loss of consortium .. Rs. 30,000.00 Loss of love and affection to claimants 3 and 4 (Rs.10,000/- x 2) .. Rs. 20,000.00 Funeral expenses .. Rs. 5,000.00 = = = = = = = = Total .. Rs.31,75,000.00 = = = = = = = = Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. The insurance company has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence aspect and this appeal is confined with regard to income of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was the agent of Canara Bank as well as Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Tribunal fixed the monthly income solely placing reliance upon the TDS certificate issued and the claimants did not file the income tax return of the deceased. Therefore, it is contended that the monthly income arrived at by the Tribunal is excessive. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants 2 to 4 on the above submissions. 7. To prove the income of the deceased, the claimant marked Exs.A9 and A10 and examined P.W.3 and P.W.4. From Ex.A9, it is seen that for a period of three years, the deceased had received commission from the Canara Bank to the tune of Rs.66,510/- to Rs.72,193/- and that amount was paid as commission after deducting Income Tax. Simultaneously, as per Ex.A10, the commission which was paid to the deceased from the Life Insurance Corporation of India for the period from 2000 – 2005, after deduction of Income Tax was Rs.26,92,934/-. The commission which was paid by Canara Bank to the deceased was on account of the deposits which were canvassed by the deceased from various depositors who had invested their money in Canara Bank. Insofar as the commission which was paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Commission was payable on the remittence of the premium by the persons who have availed Life Insurance Policies canvassed by the deceased. The commissions paid by Canara Bank as well as the Life Insurance Corporation India, would also be paid to the dependants of the deceased, however, the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased would not be able to get any fresh income in the absence of any fresh business being canvassed. The commissions paid by Canara Bank as well as the Life Insurance Corporation India, would also be paid to the dependants of the deceased, however, the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased would not be able to get any fresh income in the absence of any fresh business being canvassed. The Tribunal took note of those factors as well as the fact that those commission was payable only if the persons who have availed the Insurance Policies pay the Insurance Premium. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the entire amount as reflected in Ex.A10 viz. Rs.26,92,934/- cannot taken as the income of the deceased. In so saying, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the commission received from Life Insurance Corporation of India per month would be Rs.44,882/- [i.e. Rs.26,92,934/-]. In 60 respect of the commission which was payable by Canara Bank, the Tribunal arrived at the monthly commission at Rs.5,618/- [i.e. 66,510+72,793+63,553=2,02,256= Rs.5,618/- ]. Thus by 36 adding Rs.5,618/- with 50% of Rs.44,882/- i.e. Rs.22,441/-, the approximate monthly income was arrived at Rs.28,059/- and rounded off to Rs.30,000/-.The Tribunal, placing reliance on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Bala and Others (2006 3 MLJ 1499 (SC) : (2006) 6 SCC 249 ), deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses from and out of the total amount of Rs.30,000/- and arrived at the loss of income as Rs.20,000/-. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and as per the second schedule of the Act, proper multiplier should have been 15. But the Tribunal had adopted multiplier 13 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs.31,20,000/- (Rs.20,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.31,20,000/-). 8. Inso far as conventional damages, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-each towards loss of love and affection to both the minor children, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and computed the total compensation payable as Rs.31,75,000/- with interest at 7.5%. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased continue to get the commission and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the same and held that there was no loss of income to the family. Of course, after the death of the deceased, the legal heirs of the deceased continue to get the commission income. Of course, after the death of the deceased, the legal heirs of the deceased continue to get the commission income. However, it is to be pointed out that the legal heirs of the deceased could not be able to get fresh customer and get fresh commission income and to that extent, there would be loss of income to the family. Only taking note of the commission income which the family continues to get, the Tribunal appears to have deducted 50% from out of the LIC commission amount. 10. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that further deduction to compensation awarded by the Tribunal would not be justified, more so, when the Tribunal has taken into consideration only 50% of the total commission bearing in mind that the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased would continue to receive the commission from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Canara Bank in respect of the business already canvassed and also bearing in mind that the dependants would not be in a position to canvas for any fresh business resulting in any fresh income. Thus the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, warranting no interference. 11. In the result, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2006 is confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12. It is stated by the appellant insurance company that the appellant insurance company has deposited the entire compensation amount together with accrued interest. Second claimant/wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount apportioned to her share along with accrued interest. Insofar as the compensation apportioned to the third claimant/minor Rajadurai, he is permitted to withdraw the compensation as and when he attains majority on filing necessary application before the Tribunal for declaring him as major. Insofar as the compensation amount apportioned to the share of the fourth claimant/minor Balamurugan, the same shall continue to remain in deposit till be attains majority. From out of the said deposit, the second claimant/mother of the minor fourth claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest periodically once in three months directly from the bank.