Judgment 1. The appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.68 of 2013 is the Insurance Company. The first respondent is the husband of the deceased who died in a road accident. The wife of the first respondent was standing near a Kalyanamandapam at the old Kuvayarpalayam Road at Madurai. At that time, a lorry owned by the third respondent hit the wife of the first respondent and she succumbed to the injuries. The details are not necessary for disposal of this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has stated that the fourth respondent is given up. His statement is recorded. The second respondent is the minor daughter of the deceased born through the first respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 filed MCOP No.1492 of 2009 before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. The first respondent is a dentist. He claimed that his wife was an entrepreneur and she earned a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. However, no satisfactory evidence was produced that she earned Rs.40,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.9,000/-. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 35 years. After providing 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal used the multiplier of 16 and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, Rs.20,000/- to the second respondent towards love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,87,000/, with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition. 3. Both the appellant Insurance Company as well as the claimants, aggrieved over the same, filed C.M.A.(MD)No.68 of 2013 and Cros.Obj.(MD)No.6 of 2015 respectively. The Cross Objection was filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation by Rs.5 lakhs. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- and she was a successful entrepreneur and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimant has also relied on the evidence of Auditor for the said purpose. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- and she was a successful entrepreneur and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimant has also relied on the evidence of Auditor for the said purpose. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company has grievance in the fixation of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income by the Tribunal since the earning was not proved before the Trial Court. 7. I have gone through the records. I do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal fixing Rs.9,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. There is no clinching evidence to establish that the deceased was earning more than Rs.9,000/-. The learned counsel for the claimants are not able to show that the deceased was in receipt of monthly income more than Rs.9,000/-. It was itself a guess work. However, I am not inclined to disturb the finding with regard to fixation of Rs.9,000/- per month as monthly income of the deceased, though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellant to fix at a lower level. 8. After allowing 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Loss of Dependency is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of death. Hence, the Tribunal used 16 as the multiplier. The same is not in controversy. The Tribunal, thus arrived at Rs.11,52,000/- towards loss of dependency. However, I am of the view that the Tribunal is not correct in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent husband for loss of wife, particularly when he was aged 45 at that time and the deceased was aged 35 at that time. Hence I am inclined to enhance the same to Rs.60,000/-. Likewise, the Tribunal is not correct in granting only Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, particularly when the second respondent being a minor. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation towards towards loss of love and affection to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal also is not correct in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as the accident took place on 20.06.2009. In those periods, the funeral expenses is awarded at Rs.25,000/-. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation towards towards loss of love and affection to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal also is not correct in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as the accident took place on 20.06.2009. In those periods, the funeral expenses is awarded at Rs.25,000/-. Hence the details of the modified compensation are as under: HEADS AMOUNT(Rs.) Loss of dependency 11,52,000/- Loss of love and affection 50,000/- Loss of consortium 60,000/- Funeral expenses 25,000/- Total 12,87,000/- 9. In the result, the total compensation is modified from Rs.11,87,000/- to Rs.12,87,000/- and the award is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-. The shares of the claimants shall be as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount of compensation with interest, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the first respondent/first claimant is permitted to withdraw his share with proportionate interest. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the second respondent / minor in any one of the Nationalised Banks initially for a period of three years and renewed periodically till the minor attains majority. The interest shall be withdrawn by the first respondent / guardian of the minor, once in three months directly from the bank, which shall be utilised for the benefit and welfare of the minor. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.