Judgment : 1. A widow alongwith six children, among which two are minors, and her aged mother in law, have come up with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of a sum of Rs.4,51,900/= awarded by the Tribunal as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/= for the death of her husband by name K.Jokkupaian. 2. The deceased, a pedestrian, was smashed by the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation and thereby causing his instantaneous death. The accident is said to have occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, the claim petition was filed. 3. The Transport Corporation contested the claim by attributing the negligence on the part of the deceased contending that the deceased suddenly crossed the road, fell down and sustained injuries inspite of the fact that the bus was stopped, even without taking note of the peculiar aspect that the deceased was only a pedestrian. The Transport Corporation also denied the claim particulars. 4. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fixed the liability upon the Transport Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs.4,51,900/= under various heads. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has not properly considered the income aspect and it ought to have deducted only 1/4 towards personal expenses instead of 1/3 and the award on other heads are also on the lower side. The Tribunal has not considered the future prospects also and if 30% increase in income towards future prospects is considered, it would be reasonable, he would further contend by inviting the attention of this court to the latest decision of a Full Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in SANJAY VERMA v HARYANA ROADWAYS (Civil Appeal No.5256 of 2008-dated 29.1.2014). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation would submit that the compensation awarded passed by the Tribunal is a reasonable one and hence, no interference is called for. 7. With regard to the income, considering the undisputed fact that the deceased was taking care of eight family members apart from himself, this court feels that certainly, the deceased would have earned more amount than the sum of Rs.3600/= considered by the Tribunal. Though claimants are unable to prove the income of the deceased, the logic of survival cannot be ignored. Though claimants are unable to prove the income of the deceased, the logic of survival cannot be ignored. Hence, this court finds that he would have earned atleast a sum of Rs.4500/= per month. Considering the number of dependents, it would be reasonable to deduct only 1/4 towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has adopted a proper multiplier of 13 and hence, the same can be confirmed. Accordingly, the loss of life and dependency is arrived at Rs.5,26,500/= (Rs.4500x3/4x12x13). 8. The Full Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in the latest decision viz., Sanjay Verma's case (cited supra), awarded 50% increase in the income of the injured claimant, who was a married and self-employed man of 25 years old at the time of the accident. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has appreciated the view taken in SANTOSH DEVI v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ( (2012) 6 SCC 421 ) and RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH ( (2013) 9 SCC 54 ) wherein the principle laid down in Sarla Verma's case, to consider the annual income at the time of death of the victim, unless there are special and exceptional circumstances, was distinguished and held that an addition of 30% should be given to the income if the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. Applying the law laid down in the above decisions, this court comes to the conclusion that a 30% increase can be given to the income of the deceased towards future prospects and on such increase, the loss of life and dependency comes to Rs.6,84,450/=. 9. So far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/= towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/= towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.2500/= towards funeral expenses. In RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH (2013(3) CTC 883), a Division Bench of the Honourable Apex Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/= each under loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.25,000/= towards funeral expenses. The claimants therein are window and three minor children and the monthly income of the deceased was determined at Rs.9250/=. 10. In the case on hand, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.4500/= and the dependants are eight in number. The claimants therein are window and three minor children and the monthly income of the deceased was determined at Rs.9250/=. 10. In the case on hand, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.4500/= and the dependants are eight in number. Hence, this court is of the view that awarding Rs.75,000/= each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/= towards funeral expenses would be a reasonable one. Altogether, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.8,59,450/=. The amount enhanced would also carry interest at 7.5% per annum. Out of the award amount, claimants 1, 6 and 7 are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/= each, claimants 2 and 5 are entitled to a a sum of Rs.35,000/= each, claimants 3 and 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/= each and the 8th claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.49,450/=. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicate above. No costs. The claimants shall pay the differential court fee within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall remain sustained. The respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount deducting the amount already deposited by them within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimants, except the minors, are entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application and with regard to the share of the minors viz., claimants 6 and 7, the direction of the Tribunal to deposit the same holds good.