JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the dependants of a deceased in a road accident for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. On 09.12.2005, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver of the respondent one Brabhakaran lost his life. His dependants were awarded Rs.3,90,000/-. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased was owning a van and was selling fruits and vegetables in Melur market. The Tribunal took only Rs.3,000/-as his monthly income. There are five dependants. The Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal adopted a wrong multiplier. Under several heads, less amount was awarded. Many items of compensation were omitted. What was awarded by the Tribunal is not just compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation would contend that no proof has been produced to show the income of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded them the necessary compensation. 5. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal. 6. Admittedly, when Brabhakaran breathed his last he was 35 years old. He was a business man. He was also earning by running a van (Ex.P.7 Registration Certificate copy). He sold fruits and vegetables in Melur market. He was an income tax assessee (Ex.P.6 I.T. return and Ex.P.7 PAN Card). He was also having insurance policy. He was paying the loan amount and L.I.C. premium amount (Ex.P.8 to P.10). 7. Brabhakaran lost his life at a very young age. He was hale and healthy. He headed a family consisting of 5 persons. It is common sense that it would be highly illogical that a person with Rs.3,000/- p.m. would have supported such a big family. Thus, the income taken by the Tribunal is very less. He was a business man. Referring to the evidence and the relevant aspects we can roughly estimate his probable income. In the facts and circumstances of this case, he would have earned a minimum of Rs.5,000/- per month. 8. When persons having prosperous future, met their death untimely, it had much impact on his dependants, who were having reasonable expectation on the future prospects of the deceased. This has been taken note of by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. 8. When persons having prosperous future, met their death untimely, it had much impact on his dependants, who were having reasonable expectation on the future prospects of the deceased. This has been taken note of by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. (III (2009) ACC 708 (SC)) andthe Hon'ble Apex Court directed adding of 50% of the last income, if the deceased was upto 40 years and 30%, if the deceased is below 50 years and restricted this benefit to Government servants and others permanently employed in Public Sectors. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SANTOSH DEVI V. NATIONAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. AND OTHERS (2012 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)), extended adding of 30% of last income to persons employed in private sectors and to self employed persons also. 9. In this case, the deceased was 35 years old. A self employed. So, the benefit propounded in SARLA VERMA (supra) as extended by SANTOSH DEVI (supra) shall be extended to the dependants of late Brabakaran. Adding 30% to Rs.5,000/- comes to Rs.6,500/-. 10. As per SARLA VERMA (supra) the applicable multiplier for a person in the age group of 31 to 35 is 16'. Thus, the Tribunal had chosen the correct multiplier 16'. 11. The deduction towards pleasure and other expenses is not only depends on the marital status of the deceased but also the size of the family depended on the deceased. According to the size of the family, this deduction has to be made at the rate of 1/3rd, 1/4th and 1/5th. When there are 5 dependants, the deduction should be 1/4 of the income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd. Thus, the rate of deduction requires revision. 12. Now calculating on the above lines, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,500/-x 12 x 16 = Rs.12,48,000/-. 13. The first claimant is a widow. She became a widow at a very young age. Towards loss of consortium the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/-. It is very low. Towards loss of consortium Rs.20,000/- is awarded to her. Appellants 2 to 5 have lost the love and affection of the deceased. Each is awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards transportation charges and cremation expenses Rs.15,000/-is awarded. Towards loss of estate of the deceased Rs.15,000/- is awarded. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. It is very low. Towards loss of consortium Rs.20,000/- is awarded to her. Appellants 2 to 5 have lost the love and affection of the deceased. Each is awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards transportation charges and cremation expenses Rs.15,000/-is awarded. Towards loss of estate of the deceased Rs.15,000/- is awarded. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,38,000/-with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till deposit and with costs. The amount shall be apportioned at the same ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal. Within 10 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the appellants shall pay the excess Court Fee. Respondent shall deposit the entire amount, less amount, if any already deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellants 1 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation, less amount, if any already withdrawn. The shares of minor appellants 2 to 4 shall be deposited in a nationalised bank upto their 18 years of age. However, the interest accrued thereon shall be regularly paid to their mother and guardian/1st appellant. No costs.