Judgment (V. Dhanapalan, J.) 1. Heard Mr.S.V.Vasanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Mr.N.Nanmaran, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.3121 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, the Transport Corporation has come on appeal in C.M.A.No.1871 of 2013. On the other hand, the claimants have filed Cross Objection No.49 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. As the issue involved in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection Petition is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by a common judgment. 4. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 13.04.2011 at 10.00 a.m., while the deceased viz. J.Mallika was walking along EVR Salai, near Janakiram Colony Extension, an MTC bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 5533, route No.153 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, overtook a car from its left side, came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the deceased from the back side and caused her grievous injuries. Due to the accident, the deceased was admitted in hospital from 13.04.2011 to 19.05.2011 and she succumbed to injuries on 19.05.2011 in the hospital. The 1st claimant is the husband of the deceased; 2nd, 5th and 6th claimants are her daughters; 3rd and 4th claimants are her sons. Alleging that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus is responsible for the accident, the claimants filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-as compensation. 5. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim of the claimants that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of their Bus and that it occurred only due to the negligence of the pedestrian/deceased and that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. Also alleging that the claim made by the claimants is very excessive, the Transport Corporation sought dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1; one Mr.V.Baskaran, an eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2; one Mr.K.G.Krishnakumar, Manager of A.S.K.M. Apparels, where the deceased was working, was examined as P.W.3 and as many as Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. 6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1; one Mr.V.Baskaran, an eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2; one Mr.K.G.Krishnakumar, Manager of A.S.K.M. Apparels, where the deceased was working, was examined as P.W.3 and as many as Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Mr.K.Justinraj, driver of the MTC bus was examined as R.W.1. No exhibits were marked on their part. 7. After taking into account the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal fixed the liability of negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 5533 and awarded a sum of Rs.14,77,400/-as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit of compensation. Break-up details of the award are as under: S.No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal 1. Loss of Dependency (Rs.5000/- x 12 x 1/3 x 11) Rs.4,95,000.00 2. Loss of Consortium to the 1st claimant Rs.25,000.00 3. Loss of love & affection to claimant 2 to 6 (each Rs. 10,000/-) Rs.50,000.00 4. Medical Bills Rs.9,02,403.00 5. Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000.00 Total Rs.1477,403.00 Rounded off to Rs.14,77,400.00 8. Though Mr.S.V.Vasanthakumar, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has raised a plea of negligence, he mainly contested the matter on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. It is his contention that the quantum of compensation based on the income arrived at by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and therefore, the said finding needs interference. He pointed out that the income arrived at by the Tribunal in the case of the deceased, who was a Helper, is not correct and therefore the award of the Tribunal is vitiated in law. 9. On the other hand, Mr.N.Nanmaran, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that based on Ex.P4-Salary Certificate, the Tribunal has rightly determined the income of the deceased and therefore there is no warranting circumstances to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Further, he would contend that the Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of companionship by the first claimant and the compensation awarded towards 'loss of consortium' is very negligible. Further, he would contend that the Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of companionship by the first claimant and the compensation awarded towards 'loss of consortium' is very negligible. Also, it is his contention that the amount granted towards 'loss of love and affection to the children' is very meagre and that no amount has been awarded towards transportation. In addition, for funeral expenses, very less amount has been awarded as against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decisions. 10. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. As to the negligence aspect, the Tribunal has firstly taken into account the oral evidence of P.W.1/husband of the deceased, who has deposed that on 13.04.2011, about 10.00 a.m., while he and his wife were walking along EVR Road near Janakiram Colony extension, a Metropolitan Transport Corporation bus came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner, overtook the car on the left side and dashed against his wife, due to which, she sustained multiple injuries. She was admitted in New Hop Hospital and thereafter admitted in Apollo Hospital from 13.04.2011 to 19.05.2011 as inpatient and surgeries were performed, but she died on 19.05.2011 in the hospital. P.W.1 also deposed about the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The Tribunal also examined one V.Bhaskaran as P.W.2, who is said to have been an eye-witness to the accident. He deposed that on 13.04.2011 about 10.00 a.m., while he was walking along EVR Salai, near Janakiram Colony Extension, a MTC bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-5533, route No.153 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner overtook a car from its left side, came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the deceased-J.Mallika from the back side and caused grievous injuries. He further deposed that she was admitted in the hospital from 13.04.2011 to 19.05.2011 and died in the hospital on 19.05.2011 due to the injuries sustained by her. In this regard, a case was registered by K-4 Anna Nagar Traffic Investigation Wing Police in Crime No.163/AS3/2011 for the offence under Section 337 IPC and the FIR has been marked as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 – copy of Sketch throws more light as to the manner in which the accident took place. 12. In this regard, a case was registered by K-4 Anna Nagar Traffic Investigation Wing Police in Crime No.163/AS3/2011 for the offence under Section 337 IPC and the FIR has been marked as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 – copy of Sketch throws more light as to the manner in which the accident took place. 12. Ultimately, the Tribunal, on looking into the evidence of P.W.1 - husband of the claimant, P.W.2 – eye-witness to the accident and the deposition of R.W.1 – driver of the MTC bus as to the manner of accident as also on consideration of the information furnished in Ex.P1- First Information Report, came to the clear conclusion that it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the MTC Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-5533, the accident had occurred and fixed the liability of negligence on the driver of the offending MTC bus. 13. In the absence of any contradictory evidence and when the eye-witness to the accident had very clearly deposed about the accident, we have no hesitation to hold that the liability of negligence so fixed by the Tribunal on the driver of the MTC bus, based on material evidence, is correct and accordingly, it is confirmed. 14. On the question of quantum, the main thrust of arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation is that the income of the deceased arrived by the Tribunal is not correct. In this regard, we verified the oral evidence of P.W.3, the Manager of the Company, where the deceased was working and the documentary evidence vide Ex.11–Salary Certificate of the deceased. A perusal of the said Salary Certificate would show that the deceased was working as a Helper in an Export Company, viz. A.S.K.M. Apparels from the year 2009 till 12.04.2011 and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. Though no specific age proof is filed on the part of the claimants to prove the age of the deceased, Ex.P6 – Death Certificate and Ex.P7 – Post-mortem Certificate would show the age of the deceased as 53 years. A.S.K.M. Apparels from the year 2009 till 12.04.2011 and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. Though no specific age proof is filed on the part of the claimants to prove the age of the deceased, Ex.P6 – Death Certificate and Ex.P7 – Post-mortem Certificate would show the age of the deceased as 53 years. Taking note of the said evidence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and her age as 53 years and since the family of the deceased comprises four persons, after deducting 1/4th of her income towards personal expenses, arrived at Rs.3,750/- as monthly contribution and applying the multiplier of 11' as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case, computed the compensation towards 'loss of dependency' as Rs.4,95,000/- (Rs.3750 x 12 x 11). Since, the Tribunal fixed the age and income of the deceased on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record and that the multiplier adopted to the age of the deceased is also as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case, as also, there is no contradictory material evidence to disprove the age and income of the deceased, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Thereby, the compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' does not warrant interference and it is accordingly confirmed. 15. As regards compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head 'loss of consortium to the 1st claimant', it is seen that the amount awarded under the said head is on the lesser side. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC) was pleased to hold as under: “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 Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2012 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC). 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. 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 and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), 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.” In view of the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, we feel that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the 1st claimant towards 'loss of consortium' can be enhanced and accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 16. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 6'. We are not satisfied with the approach of the Tribunal in this regard. 16. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 6'. We are not satisfied with the approach of the Tribunal in this regard. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to enhance the compensation awarded to the claimants 2 to 6, who are the sons and daughters of the deceased and accordingly, we enhance the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of love and affection to claimants 2 to 6' to Rs.1,00,000/-, i.e. the claimants 2 to 6 are each entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 17. Since the compensation of Rs.9,02,403/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'Medical Bills' is based on documentary evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, it is confirmed. 18. Also, a sum of Rs.5000/- awarded under the head 'funeral expenses' is certainly on the lower side. In the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while awarding compensation under the head funeral expenses has held as under: "18. 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 a 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 "funeral expenses", in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-." Taking note of the ratio laid down in the above ruling, we find it just and reasonable to enhance the compensation under the head 'funeral expenses' and accordingly, it is enhanced to a sum of Rs.10,000/-. 19. Coming to the plea of the claimants that no amount has been awarded towards 'transportation expenses', it is seen that due to the accident, the deceased was hospitalized from 13.04.2011 till 19.05.2011. 19. Coming to the plea of the claimants that no amount has been awarded towards 'transportation expenses', it is seen that due to the accident, the deceased was hospitalized from 13.04.2011 till 19.05.2011. Since she has taken treatment in private hospitals for more than 40 days as an inpatient, the claimants would have normally incurred expenditure towards transportation. Therefore, we find it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards transportation expenses. 20. Accordingly, the award of Rs.14,77,400/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.90,000/-and the claimants are now entitled to a sum of Rs.15,67,400/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand and Four Hundred only) as compensation along with accrued interest at 7.5% per annum. 21. The break-up details of the award thus modified by this Court are as under: S.no. Description Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this court Confirmed or modified 1. Loss of income Rs. 4,95,000.00 Rs. 4,95,000.00 Confirmed 2. Loss of consortium to the first claimant Rs.25,000 Rs.50,000.00 Enhanced by Rs.25,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 6 Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Enhanced byRs.50,000/- 4. Medical bills Rs. 9,02,403.00 Rs. 9,02,403.00 Confirmed 5. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 10,000.00 enhanced by Rs.5,000/- 6. Transportation charges - Rs. 10,000.00 fresh award Total Rs.14,77,400.00 Rs.15,67,403.00 enhanced by Rs.90,000/- Rounded off to Rs.15,67,400.00 22. It is to be noted that as per the order of this Court dated 28.06.2013 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.1871 of 2013, the entire award amount has been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3121 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw 50% of their apportioned share from the award and the balance amount was ordered to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks under reinvestment scheme, initially, for a period of three years. 23. In the light of the above modification in the award amount, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, who is the appellant in C.M.A.No.1871 of 2013 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3121 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, pursuant to which, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the balance award amount. In fine, C.M.A.No.1871 of 2013 filed by the Transport Corporation is dismissed and Cross Objection No.49 of 2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.