JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is the award in M.C.O.P.No.1233 of 2003 (6.9.2010) on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub-Court), Cuddalore awarding compensation of Rs.12,26,000/- for the death of deceased R.Gunasekaran in the road traffic accident on 17.4.2003. 2. Brief facts are that on 17.4.2003 deceased Gunasekaran was riding his scooter bearing registration No.TCO 6944 from south to north direction at his left side of Vadalur-Panruti Main Road. At about 4.15 p.m. when he was nearing Vadalur Railway Gate, the Jeep bearing registration No.TCE 6133 came in the same direction at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter. Due to the impact, Gunasekaran was thrown out of his scooter and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, Gunasekaran was taken to the hospital and Gunasekaran died on the way to the hospital. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the driver of Jeep in Crime No.193 of 2003 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. of Vadalur Police Station. At the time of accident, deceased Gunasekaran was running Telephone and Fax Booth and also Xerox shop. He was also a Goldsmith and Jeweller and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver and that the family has lost the support, the Claimants who are wife, daughters, son and mother have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Denying the accident, Appellant-Insurance Company had filed counter contending that on 17.4.2003, deceased Gunasekaran drove his scooter behind the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to overtake the jeep at the speed break near Vadalur Railway Gate, dashed behind the jeep and fell down. It was averred that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of Gunasekaran, Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Akilandam @ Kalaivani examined herself as P.W.1. Eye-witness Chinnasamy was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of Appellant-Insurance Company, the Investigating Officer – K.Devarajan was examined as R.W.1. Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 5. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Akilandam @ Kalaivani examined herself as P.W.1. Eye-witness Chinnasamy was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of Appellant-Insurance Company, the Investigating Officer – K.Devarajan was examined as R.W.1. Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep driver and that owner of Jeep and its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Based on Exs.P5 to P11, Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/-. Deducting one-third for personal expenses, Tribunal calculated the loss of income at Rs.7,000/- per month. Adopting multiplier "14", Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.11,76,000/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.12,26,000/- to the Claimants. 6. Challenging the quantum of compensation, Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding huge sum as compensation and the compensation awarded is not in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles for awards in similar cases. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the monthly contribution at Rs.7,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is excess and the multiplier adopted is also on the higher side. 7. Taking us through the documents and the award of Tribunal, Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much reasonable warranting no interference. 8. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and insurance policy coverage and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded infavour of Claimants and secondly, none of the findings are under challenge. Only quantum of compensation is in dispute. 9. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that at the time of accident, her husband was running STD, Fax and Xerox Booth. P.W.1 has stated that apart from running Telephone booth, her husband was doing goldsmith work and was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Claimants have produced Exs.P7 to P11 to show that deceased was running Telephone booth. 9. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that at the time of accident, her husband was running STD, Fax and Xerox Booth. P.W.1 has stated that apart from running Telephone booth, her husband was doing goldsmith work and was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Claimants have produced Exs.P7 to P11 to show that deceased was running Telephone booth. Claimants have also produced Exs.P5, P6, P13 to P15 to show that at the time of accident deceased was doing goldsmith work and was a life member of Vishvakarma Sangam. Having regard to the evidence of P.W.1 and the Telephone booth was running by the deceased, we are of the view that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.10,500/- is very reasonable. Deducting one-third for personal expenses i.e. Rs.3,500/-, Tribunal has fixed the monthly contribution to the family at Rs.7,000/-(Rs.10,500 – Rs.3,500/-), which in our considered view is reasonable. 10. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 45 years. Tribunal has adopted multiplier "14" for calculating the annual loss of dependency, which is also in our considered view is in accordance with Second Schedule to M.V. Act. Taking the monthly income at Rs.7,000/- and adopting multiplier "14", Tribunal has calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs.11,76,000/-(Rs.7,000 x 12 x 14 = Rs.11,76,000/-), which in our considered view is reasonable and the same is confirmed. 11. In so far as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-for loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- for transport charges and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and the same are maintained. 12. In so far as interest, Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition and the same is maintained. 13. In the result, compensation of Rs.12,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1233 of 2003 (6.9.2010) on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub-Court), Cuddalore is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. It was stated before us that Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest and costs. It was also stated that sofar Claimants have not withdrawn any amount. Claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest as apportioned to them immediately on receipt of the copy of judgment. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.