Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The appeal is only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The husband of the first respondent was the omnibus driver. While he was driving the bus, the accident took place. The details of the accident are not necessary since this appeal is only relating to quantum. 2. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased, the second respondent is the son of the deceased and the third respondent is the mother of the deceased. The claimants made a claim for Rs.20 lakhs. On the side of the claimants, the first respondent wife was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the occurrence witness. P.W.3 is the employer under whom the deceased was employed. Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. No witness was examined or no documents were marked on the side of the Insurance Company. Based on the evidence given by P.W.3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident took place on 04.09.2008. He was a heavy vehicle driver and he drove the omnibus. Hence, in my view, the monthly salary fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- cannot be termed as excessive. 3. The Tribunal arrived at the annual income at Rs.1,20,000/- and thereafter it deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and arrived at the annual loss of income at Rs.80,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 39 years, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), the Tribunal should have used 15 as the multiplier. But the Tribunal used 16 as the multiplier and arrived at the total loss of income at Rs.12,80,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal should have used 15 as the multiplier and only Rs.12 lakhs should have been awarded. 4. In fact, the learned counsel for the claimants fairly submitted that the multiplier should have been 15 and loss of income should have been arrived at Rs.12,00,000/-. But the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal was Rs.12,92,500/- under the following heads: HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of income 12,80,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Loss of consortium 5,000/- Loss of estate 2,500/- Total.... 12,92,500/- 5. But the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal was Rs.12,92,500/- under the following heads: HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of income 12,80,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Loss of consortium 5,000/- Loss of estate 2,500/- Total.... 12,92,500/- 5. Though the loss of income may be fixed at Rs.12 lakhs, I am of the view that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal would be termed as a reasonable one. Since the amount awarded towards loss of consortium and towards funeral expenses are a meagre one, the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,80,000/- that was awarded in excess of loss of income could be adjusted towards the aforesaid heads. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal as the same is fair and reasonable. 6. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 7. It is stated that the entire award amount has been deposited along with interest. Hence, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same.