JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant Transport Corporation, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.12.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. 2. The appellant/Transport Corporation is the respondent, whereas the respondents are petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. 3. The respondents filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, as compensation, for the death of the husband of the first respondent and the father of the respondents 2 to 4. The Tribunal, by order dated 22.12.2011, awarded a sum of Rs.8,54,400/-, as compensation. 4. Against the said order, dated 22.12.2011, the present appeal is filed. 5. The facts of the case: One Ganesan, the husband of the first respondent and the father of the respondents 2 to 4, was travelling along with his son in the bus, bearing Registration No.TN-67-N-0939, belonging to the appellant, on 07.03.2006. He was sitting in the back seat. The driver of the bus, belonging to the appellant, drove the same at a high speed. While the driver was negotiating in a curve at a high speed, the said Ganesan fell down from the said bus through the back entrance and sustained injuries. In spite of treatment, he died in the hospital, due to the injuries. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. He was working in the Office of Divisional Excise and was earning a sum of Rs.9,046/- per month. The respondents are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. Therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, as compensation. 6. The appellant filed counter statement denying the averments made by the respondents. According to the appellant, under the influence of Alcohol, the said Ganesan was travelling on the footboard of the bus holding the hand bar. The driver of the bus was driving the bus carefully at a moderate speed. The deceased fell down from the bus due to his negligence. The driver of the appellant is not responsible for the accident. Therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. The driver of the bus was driving the bus carefully at a moderate speed. The deceased fell down from the bus due to his negligence. The driver of the appellant is not responsible for the accident. Therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first respondent was examined herself as P.W.1 and one Suresh was examined as P.W.2 and marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the appellant, one Sridharan was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, belonging to the appellant. Taking into consideration the age and income of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,54,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that; (a) at the time of accident, the deceased was under the influence of Alcohol and was travelling in the footboard of the bus. Due to his negligence only, he fell down, sustained injuries and died; (b) the driver of the bus was driving the bus carefully at a moderate speed. The reason given by the Tribunal for not accepting the evidence of R.W.1, is not correct; (c) the Tribunal did not apply the correct multiplier. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident and had only 8 years of service and therefore, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier 8' only; (d) The Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of split multiplier. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident. He had only 8 years of service. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have calculated compensation on the total salary, which the deceased was earning [by applying multiplier of 8 on the net salary] and thereafter, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 5 on 50% of salary, as the deceased would have got pension at the rate of 50% of income, he was drawing at the time of accident; and (e) the amount awarded is excessive and prayed for allowing the appeal. 10. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 334 (DB) [Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M.Arulmozhi and others], wherein at paragraph 14, it has been held as follows: "14. Now, the dependency after the retirement of the deceased is to be considered. Had the deceased Murugesan been alive, after the age of superannuation, he would get only half of the salary as pension. Therefore, it is an exceptional case where the split multiplier has to be adopted, i.e., 1 + 7 = 8. As there is no scope for evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased and since the earning would be reduced to 50% after retirement, the Multiplier of 8 as adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court feels that split Multiplier can be adopted and as such, after superannuation, 7 Multiplier would apply. Therefore, the Loss of Dependency from pensionary benefits would be Rs.8,637/- x 12 x 1/4 x 7 = Rs.5,44,131/." 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was not under the influence of Alcohol and the appellant did not substantiate the said allegation. The accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The respondents proved the rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus through the evidence of P.W.2, the fourth respondent herein, who travelled along with the deceased and by marking First Information Report. The Tribunal awarded a very meagre amounts for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In the interest of justice, the same has to be enhanced by this Court, by invoking Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the materials on record. 13. The points for consideration in this appeal are, (a) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant or due to negligence on the part of the deceased? (b) Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper? 14. The respondents claimed compensation on the ground that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. (b) Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper? 14. The respondents claimed compensation on the ground that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. To substantiate the same, they examined P.W.2, the fourth respondent herein, who is an eyewitness to the accident. P.W.2 categorically stated that his father was sitting in the back seat of the bus at the time of accident. He denied that the deceased was under influence of Alcohol and standing on the footboard of the bus. The evidence of P.W.2 is that, only approximately 10 to 15 persons were standing in the bus and therefore, there is no possibility of his father standing in the footboard of the bus. R.W.1, the driver of the bus deposed that the deceased was under the influence of Alcohol and was travelling in the footboard of the bus and fell down from the bus due to his own negligence. He further stated that whether the deceased was under influence of Alcohol or not, could be found out from the Postmortem report. The Tribunal considering the fact that there were only ten passengers standing in the bus apart from the passengers, who were sitting in the bus, rejected the contentions of R.W.1, the driver of the bus. 15. In the Postmortem report, marked as Ex.P3, there is no mention that the deceased was under the influence of Alcohol. The First Information Report, marked as Ex.P1, it has been stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by R.W.1, the driver of the bus. Taking into consideration of these aspects, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. There is no reason to interfere in the said finding. 16. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents have stated that the deceased was a Government Servant and he was getting a salary of Rs.9,046/- p.m. The respondents have produced salary certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the said document, fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.8,100/- p.m. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The respondents have stated that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal considering the said document, fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.8,100/- p.m. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The respondents have stated that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. They have not produced any document to prove the same. In the Postmortem report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 50 years. In view of the same, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 50 years. As per the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal applied multiplier 13'. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another], the correct multiplier is 13. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. By applying multiplier 13', the Tribunal arrived at Rs. 8,42,400/- as loss of income. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier method in arriving at compensation under the heading loss of income, is untenable and unsustainable. In the present case, admittedly the deceased was having 8 years of service. He would have got increment, promotion of service, revision of pay, etc. Taking into consideration the deceased was having 8 years of further service and would have got increase in salary, I hold that split multiplier method is not applicable in the present case. For this reasons, I hold that the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the deceased in that case, had only one year of service. Whereas in the present case, the deceased had 8 years of service. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection viz., Rs.10,000/- is too meager, has considerable force. This is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. Hence, I enhance the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, to Rs.50,000/- and loss of love affection to Rs.25,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 4. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 19. This is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. Hence, I enhance the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, to Rs.50,000/- and loss of love affection to Rs.25,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 4. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 19. The break-up details of the award thus modified by this Court are as under: Sl. No. Description Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or modified 1 Loss of Income 8,42,400 8,42,400 Confirmed 2 Loss of Consortium       & Loss of love 10,000 Loss of consortium to wife-first respondent 50,000 Modified 3 Funeral expenses 2,000 2,000 Confirmed 4 Loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 to 4 (each Rs.25,000/-) - 75,000 Modified Total 8,54,400 9,69,400 Enhanced by Rs.1,15,000 20. It is to be noted that as per order of this Court, dated 23.01.2014, made in M.P.(MD) No.4 of 2013 in C.M.A.(MD) No.2024 of 2013, the entire award amount has been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. Therefore, the appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount now modified by this Court with interest @ 7.5% p.a., less the amount already deposited, from the date of petition till the date of deposit within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 21. In the light of the above modification in the award amount, the first respondent would be entitled Rs.5,19,400/- and respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- each with accrued interest and proportionate costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn by them, on making necessary application before the Tribunal. 22. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award amount is enhanced from Rs.8,54,400/- to Rs.9,69,400/-. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.