Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No: 1044 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Judge, Tindivanam, in and by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 40 lakhs. 2. The claimants are the wife and daughters of the deceased Rajendran. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 18.01.2008 around 7.00 p.m., the deceased Rajendran, along with his relative Maniyappan, was returning from Pondicherry to his hometown Marakanam in his two wheeler (Hero Honda) in the East Coast Road. When they were travelling near Chettikulam, an autorickshaw which was going ahead of their two wheeler applied ''sudden break”; therefore, Rajendran also stopped his two wheeler by applying ''sudden break”; at that time, a bus belonging to the appellant transport Corporation with Regn. No: TC-32-N-2179, which was plying from Chidambaram to Chennai, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the two wheeler from behind and on the impact the two wheeler caught fire, in which Rajendran died on the spot. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.40 lakhs, the claimants approached the Tribunal. 3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver of the appellant Corporation bus. The Tribunal, applied 15 as multiplier for the age of the deceased which is 45. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation for loss of income; Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection to each of the children ; a sum of Rs.70,000/- for loss of love and affection for the mother of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for transport expenses and thus granted a total sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Rejendran. Challenging the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. 25,000/- for transport expenses and thus granted a total sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Rejendran. Challenging the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. The Transport Corporation, though raised a plea of negligence, mainly questioned the award of compensation as to the applicability of the multiplier and also on the ground that the non pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and contrary to the settled principles. The appellant had also taken a ground that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal at a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is not supported by any documentary evidence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would contend that the Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at the just and reasonable compensation and it cannot be said to be exorbitant even on the head of non pecuniary damages awarded. According to him, the income arrived at by the Tribunal as well as the multiplier adopted is only in accordance with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), and hence, no intereference is called for. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents made available on record and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel on either side. 7. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents made available on record and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel on either side. 7. As to the first question of negligence, the Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced by P.W.1 which is to the effect that her husband was employed as an agent with Life Insurance Corporation of India; he went to Chidambaram and Pondicherry in his two wheeler to meet some of his policy holders; on 18.01.2008, he was returning from Chidambaram to Pondy along with his friend and relative Mariyappan in his two wheeler in East Coast Road; when they were plying at Chettikulam near Marakkanam, the auto going ahead of their two wheeler stopped suddenly; therefore, Rajendran also applied sudden break and stopped his two wheeler; at that time, the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation with Registration No: TN-32-N-2179, which was proceeding from Chidambaram to Chennai came from behind and dashed against the two wheeler; in the impact of the accident, the two wheeler belonging to Rajendran caught fire and he died on the spot, while the pillion rider Mariyappan, who was examined as P.W.2 before the Tribunal, sustained injuries. The evidence of P.W.2, who was in fact an eye witness, also spoke on the same lines as that of P.W.1. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, marked as Ex.P.2, was also taken into consideration by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and accordingly, the liability was fixed on the Transport Corporation. As there is no serious contention on that issue, we are not inclined to go into that aspect and hence, the liability fixed on the Transport Corporation by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. On the question of quantum of compensation fixed, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident is clear from Ex.P.3, the Post Mortem Report. P.W.1 has deposted that he was working as an agent for Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is also her evidence that the deceased went to Pondicherry to canvass Insurance Policies with various people. P.W.1 has deposted that he was working as an agent for Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is also her evidence that the deceased went to Pondicherry to canvass Insurance Policies with various people. The copy of the order appointing the deceased as an Agent in L.I.C. of India is marked as Ex.P.8 and Exs.P.9 and P.10 are the statement of his total income and the Profit and Loss Account. Apart from the above, the claimants have also marked various documents and certificates from L.I.C. of India as Exs. P.9 to P.18 to show his occupation and income. Ex.P.19 is the certificate issued by M/s. PIMS. Placing reliance on the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased Rajendran at Rs.15,000/-per month; deducted one third of the monthly income towards his personal expenses and fixed the sum of Rs.10,000/-towards his contribution to the family. By adopting 15 as multiplier the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-[Rs.10,000/-x 12 x 15] as compensation for loss of income. Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses; Rs.3,00,000/- for the wife as compensation for loss of consortium; each Rs.1,00,000/-for loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 4 and also awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- for loss of love and affection to the 5th claimant, mother of the deceased. Thus, in all the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-as compensation for the death of Rajendran. 9. The main plea of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation is that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with either the Schedule envisaged under the M.V. Act or it is in line with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma, cited supra. According to him, the correct multiplier is 14 and not 15 and accordingly, he requested this Court to re-examine the case and apply the appropriate multiplier. As to the income part, the evidence let in as well as the documents filed would clinchingly prove the fact that the deceased was employed as an agent with Life Insurance Corporation of India and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.15,000/- as his monthly income and had also deducted one third towards his personal expenses. However, the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.15,000/- as his monthly income and had also deducted one third towards his personal expenses. Considering the abundant proof of income filed by the claimants, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal having taken only the minimum sum of Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, would have atleast deducted one fourth towards his personal expenses to arrive at the just income. By adopting such a course with 14 as multiplier, if we calculate the loss of income, it would be a sum of Rs. 18,90,000/- [ Rs.15,000/- x ¼ = Rs.11,250/-. Rs.11,250/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 18,90,000/- ]. Accordingly, we modify the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income from Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.18,90,000/-. 10. Now coming to the question of award of non pecuniary damages, the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC (SC) 55 in the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others would directly apply to the point in issue in the case on hand. In that case, the Supreme Court held that, "20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santhosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2,500/-to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5,000/-to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium. 21. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-." Following the afore said decision rendered by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be a just and reasonable compensation under the head loss of consortium and accordingly, the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded under the head loss of consortium is reduced to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 1,00,000/- would be a just and reasonable compensation under the head loss of consortium and accordingly, the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded under the head loss of consortium is reduced to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Relying on the very same decision, we would also like to increase the amount awarded under the head funeral expenses in this case from Rs. 5,000/- to 10,000/-. 11. It is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to all the three children and a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the mother of the deceased under the head loss of love and affection. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each would be appropriate compensation for the claimants 2 to 4 under the head loss of love and affection due to the death of the deceased. Accordingly, we reduce the amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection from Rs.3,70,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. We are not disturbing the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head Transport Charges as we feel that it is a reasonable amount. Thus, we fix the sum of Rs.22,25,000/- as the total compensation for the death of the deceased – Rs.18,90,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards transport expenses. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that though he has already filed a cross objection, till date it has not been numbered and in view of the order passed by this Court today in this C.M.A., he is not insisting upon the cross objection to be taken up by this Court. His statement is brought on record and the Registry is directed to do the needful. His statement is brought on record and the Registry is directed to do the needful. As to the deposit of the award amount, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation that while admitting this C.M.A. on 17.04.2013, this Court, had granted an order of conditional interim stay and directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount together with accrued interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P. No: 1044 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Judge, Tinidivanam, within the stipulated time. If such a deposit had been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their respective share by making an appropriate application before the Tribunal.