JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. It is very unfortunate that seven months old child lost his mother in this case. The said child in rest of his life cannot have a chance of even seeing his mother's face. In the accident occurred on 24.02.2010, the first respondent's wife A.K. Shanthi, who was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle driven by her husband, along with her minor child and the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind the motorcycle and due to which, the said Shanthi fell down and was run over, resulting in her death. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 to the tune of Rs. 15 Lakhs. 2. After contest, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,80,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) to the claimants as compensation, which is challenged before this Court on the ground of quantum alone. 3. Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would submit that the deceased was allegedly selling eatables and was earning about Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and the Tribunal, having accepted the sum of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. as monthly income, still granted 30%, towards future loss of income, which is in contravention to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Therefore, he submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,44,800/- is liable to be deleted. 4. Secondly he would submit that a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- awarded towards baby care taker is not sustainable, since the child is looked after by his paternal grandparents. 5. Heard Mr. N. Sudhagar Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. 6. The husband, 9 years old child and 7 months old child are the claimants. For loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 and 3, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was rightly awarded by the Tribunal. However, for loss of consortium, only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was given. The deceased was aged about 34 years and the first respondent was aged about 39 years and lost his life partner at this age which is very unfortunate and that too leaving two minor children. However, for loss of consortium, only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was given. The deceased was aged about 34 years and the first respondent was aged about 39 years and lost his life partner at this age which is very unfortunate and that too leaving two minor children. For loss of companion, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low and therefore, a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- is awarded to the first respondent. The transportation charges is concerned, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded and the same is confirmed. As far the funeral expenses is concerned, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded. As per the judgment in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the funeral expenses. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the paternal grandparents are taking care of the child and therefore, there is no necessity to award a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards the expenses for baby care taker. 8. The Tribunal, considering the importance of the baby care taker, who can be engaged for five years at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- p.m., rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- and the Tribunal has not given any amount for more than five years. Though it is stated that the paternal grandparents are said to be looking after the child, a committed care taker alone would be in a position to look after the child. Therefore, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal is sustained. 9. The important point that has to be decided is regarding the determination of monthly income. As far as the determination of monthly income is concerned, not much argument has been advanced. Even if it so, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Sengabagam and Others v. Vinod Kumar and another reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 450 DB, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was determined for a business person, where no documentary proof was available. This case is also not different from that. Therefore, rightly a sum of Rs. 6,000/- has been determined as monthly income of the deceased, which is in consonance with the above said judgment. After deducting 1/3rd towards monthly expenses, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- has been taken as the loss of income. The said determination is confirmed. This case is also not different from that. Therefore, rightly a sum of Rs. 6,000/- has been determined as monthly income of the deceased, which is in consonance with the above said judgment. After deducting 1/3rd towards monthly expenses, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- has been taken as the loss of income. The said determination is confirmed. Hence, the loss of income awarded by the Tribunal as Rs. 8,16,000/- is hereby confirmed. 10. As far as the future prospects at the rate of 30% to the tune of Rs. 2,44,800/- is concerned, it has to be deleted, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013)9 SCC 65 . According to the said judgment, for non-earning member, there cannot be any award of 30% towards future loss of income. In view of that, the said amount is deleted. In fine, the award amount of Rs. 13,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) in the following manner : For Loss of income Rs.8,16,000/- For Baby care taker Rs.1,80,000/- For loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 & 3 Rs.1,00,000/- For loss of consortium Rs.75,000/- For funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- For transportation charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.12,01,000/- Rounded off to Rs.12,00,000/- The rate of interest at 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 11. In the award amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- each claimants are entitled to each Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only). Both the learned Counsel for the parties would submit that the entire award amount has already been deposited before the Tribunal. In view of that, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw his share amount along with the proportionate interest and costs. As far as the minors' shares are concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the minors' share amount to any one of the Nationalised Bank initially for a period of three years and thereafter it shall be renewed periodically, till they attain majority. The first respondent/father of the minor children is permitted to withdraw interest alone from the said deposit, directly from the Bank, once in three months, till the minors attain majority. 12. The Tribunal is also directed to return the excess amount of Rs. The first respondent/father of the minor children is permitted to withdraw interest alone from the said deposit, directly from the Bank, once in three months, till the minors attain majority. 12. The Tribunal is also directed to return the excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- with proportionate interest to the appellant Transport Corporation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.