Judgment : 1. How poor is poor This classic case explains the magnitude of the question. As against the claim made for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-and when the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,39,000/- for a family consisting of wife, three minor children and aged parents, the corporation has filed this appeal as if survival is possible even without having a minimum amount of money to sustain hand to mouth existence. 2. The deceased / Vellingiri, aged 36 years, flower vendor, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month, died in an accident, that took place on 16.08.2003. The wife, minor children and the parents (six in number), filed a claim petition for compensation, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The Tribunal quantified the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.4,39,000/-. The breakup details are as follows:- 3.1. Taking the, (a) monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, (b) age as 36, (c) adopting multiplier of 16, and (d) reducing 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.3,84,000/-. Awarding cremation expenses at Rs.5,000/-, loss of consortium to wife at Rs.10,000/-and loss of love and affection at Rs.10,000/- each of the P-2 to P-4 and Rs.5,000/- to each of the P-5 and P-6, the total amount of compensation was quantified at Rs.4,39,000/-. 4. Challenging the quantum as excessive, the Transport Corporation is on appeal. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that during the year 2003 i.e., at the time of accident, the deceased, especially the flower vendor, would not have earned a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, and therefore, it is a fit case where the monthly income should have been fixed below Rs.3,000/-per month. Whether this contention is justified is the issue to be considered. 5.1. What could have been the normal expenditure for the average common man during 2003 or what could have been his earnings to satisfy his needs and also to fulfil the requirement of the members of his family?. What would be the minimum amount that is required to be spent to exist on this earth would be another relevant question. This question may have the answer from the amount fixed for deciding the poverty line. 5.2 During 2011, the country's poverty line was fixed at Rs.32/- a day - in cities, and Rs.26/- in rural areas. What would be the minimum amount that is required to be spent to exist on this earth would be another relevant question. This question may have the answer from the amount fixed for deciding the poverty line. 5.2 During 2011, the country's poverty line was fixed at Rs.32/- a day - in cities, and Rs.26/- in rural areas. This was the rate fixed by the Planning Commission of India. 5.3 Utsa Patnaik, the professor at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, criticised the finding by making the following observation:- "The official poverty lines do not measure poverty any more; they measure destitution.” 5.4 Rs.32/- as anybody's daily budget, for food, transport, medicine, education, communication, rent, utilities, cooking fuel, clothing, footwear and entertainment would obviously be insufficient. When such being the case in 2011, even assuming 50% of Rs.32/- as the requirement during 2003, one can understand that decent/dignified living is not possible with that amount. 5.5. Even to have one time meal, for all the six persons and to meet the basic necessities referred above, the minimum amount of Rs.100/- per day, would have been spent. Therefore, the evidence of the wife that her husband was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, must be true and cannot be rejected. The Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. 5.6. In fact, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, when the dependents are large in number. 5.7. It would be worthy to extract the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santhosh Devi. Vs. National Insurance Company 2012 (4) SCALE 559 dealing with deduction for living and personal expenses of the deceased. “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 5.8. From the decision, cited supra, it is clear that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. If 1/3rd had not been deducted towards personal expenses and if 1/4th had been deducted, the compensation would have been more. Such being the case, the contention of the corporation that the amount awarded is excessive cannot be accepted. The details of compensation awarded only go to show that what is awarded by the Claims Tribunal could have been little more and not excessive. 6. Therefore, the quantum of compensation cannot be said to be excessive. There is no merits in the appeal and therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.