Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No: 251 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in and by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,96,361/-as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 30 lakhs. 2. The claimants, who are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased Balasubramanian respectively, are the respondents herein. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 29.03.2011, when the deceased was going towards Tindivanam from Chennai in GST Road, in his motor cycle bearing Regn. No: TN 32 T 6387 on the extreme left side of the road, while he was nearing the place opposite to Devi Automobiles Shop, the vehicle belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind the motor cycle which Balasubramanian was riding. Due to this, Balasubramanian was thrown out from the motor cycle and he sustained serious injuries on his head, ribs, lungs, hand and other vital parts of the body. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Tindivanam and thereafter, he was referred to Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Hospital at Porur, for treatment and was then shifted to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, EVR Road, Chennai. Despite the best treatment, Balasubramanian succumbered to his injuries on 10.04.2011. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant Transport Corporation by contending that the accident did not take place in the manner as claimed by the claimants and that the deceased alone is responsible for the accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,96,361/-in total as compensation for the death of Balasubramanian. Challenging the said award, the transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and perused the material documents made available on record. 6. 28,96,361/-in total as compensation for the death of Balasubramanian. Challenging the said award, the transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and perused the material documents made available on record. 6. Though the appellant had raised both the grounds namely negligency as well as the quantum of compensation awarded in assailing the impugned award, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly put forth his contention on two folds namely the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation by fixing the loss of income contrary to the material evidences and that the multiplier applied is wrong. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 (2) CTC 680. 7. On the otherhand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would contend that the Tribunal, looking into the oral and documentary evidence and analysing various factors involved in the case and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court has clearly determined the compensation amount and such an award cannot be called in question by the Transport Corporation. However, he would add that as per the existing legal position, the correct multiplier to be adopted in this case would be 14. 8. Let us first consider the question of negligence. Though the appellant has raised a plea that the accident had not occurred in the manner as pleaded by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased; that the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation was cautiously driving the bus in accordance with the existing rules and that the accident occurred only due to the carelessness exhibited on the part of the deceased in suddenly crossing the road from left side to right side to proceed towards the branch road on the right side, the evidence brought forth by the claimants speak otherwise. The claimants have examined one Mr. Srinivasan, who is a stranger, as P.W.2. He was an eye witness to the accident. He had deposed that on the date of accident, on his official business, he was travelling from “Melpattai Village” to Tindivanam in his motor cycle via “Kaveripakkam Ari” in G.S.T. Road. The claimants have examined one Mr. Srinivasan, who is a stranger, as P.W.2. He was an eye witness to the accident. He had deposed that on the date of accident, on his official business, he was travelling from “Melpattai Village” to Tindivanam in his motor cycle via “Kaveripakkam Ari” in G.S.T. Road. Before him, opposite to Devi Automobiles, the deceased Balasubramanian was going in his Hero Honda Super Splendour with registration No: TN 32 D 6387 on the left side of the road. At that time, the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation with registration No: TN 45 N 2622, which was also proceeding in the same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle driven by Balasubramanian from behind and due to the impact, Balasubramanian was thrown out of his vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. Though the driver of the bus slowed down as if he is stopping the bus, he again drove the bus fastly towards Tindivanam. P.W.2, with the help of others, took the injured to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam, and then he was referred to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital at Porur and later he came to know that the injured had succumbered to his injuries. This part of the oral evidence of P.W.2 clinchingly proves the guilt on the part of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus in causing the accident and, therefore, in our opinion the Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that negligent act of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation is the cause of the accident. 9. In respect of the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration Ex.P.2 the Post Mortem report for determining the age of the deceased Balasubramanian on the date of the accident as 45 years. The claimants claimed that the deceased was engaged in contract work, real estate business, agricultural work, milk vending business and also insurance company agent. They claim that he was earning a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as income. However, the Tribunal, on consideration of Exs.P.17, P.18 and P.19 came to the conclusion that the deceased would have earned an income of Rs. 23,000/- per month and arrived at the annual income at Rs.2,76,000/-. After deducting one third for his personal expenses, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as income. However, the Tribunal, on consideration of Exs.P.17, P.18 and P.19 came to the conclusion that the deceased would have earned an income of Rs. 23,000/- per month and arrived at the annual income at Rs.2,76,000/-. After deducting one third for his personal expenses, a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- was taken as income and by applying 15 as the multiplier, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs. 27,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the multiplier applied is also wrong. A perusal of Exs.P.17 and P.18 would go to show that the deceased had shown an income of Rs.2,46,800/- as his annual income for the assessment year 2009-2010. Except the income tax returns filed, no other document is filed by the claimants to show that the deceased was earning more than the sum declared therein. Going by that document, we are of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased would have been a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. After deducting one third towards his personal expenses, a sum of Rs. 10,000/-could be taken as his contribution to the family. Considering the age of the deceased 30% is added for future prospects and thus, the annual income would be Rs.1,56,000/- (Rs.13,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,56,000/-). The age of the deceased was 45 years. As per the decision rendered in Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 , the correct multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 years would be 14. If 14 is taken as multiplier, the loss of dependency would be a sum of Rs. 21,84,000/- [Rs.1,56,000/- x 14 = Rs. 21,84,000/-]. 10. Now, we shall look at the non-pecuniary damages. Towards loss of consortium the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the wife of the deceased. In 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, it was held that, "20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. In 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, it was 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. 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. 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 aforesaid decision and considering the age of the 1st claimant, in our opinion, the sum awarded by the Tribunal can be enhanced and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of love and affection to both the children. We are of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/-each can be granted to the daughter and son of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-each towards funeral expenses and transport expenses. It is hereby enhanced to a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-respectively. The Tribunal has accepted the actual medical expenses and had awarded a sum of Rs.26,362/- under that head. It is hereby rounded off and a sum of Rs.26,400/-is awarded under the head medical expenses. Thus determined, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.28,96,362/- is modified to a sum of Rs. 23,95,400/-. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The appellant Transport Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the entire award amount, as modified by us, along with accrued interest thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already deposited. 23,95,400/-. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The appellant Transport Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the entire award amount, as modified by us, along with accrued interest thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already deposited. On such deposit being made, the 1st claimant shall be entitled to withdraw her share of the award amount and the respective share of the minors, claimants 2 and 3, shall be deposited in a nationalised bank initially for a period of three years and be renewed subsequently. The 1st claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accured on such deposit once in three months.