JUDGMENT M.VENUGOPAL, J. The Appellant/Transport Corporation has preferred the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 11.10.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.1123 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. The Claims Tribunal, while passing the award in M.C.O.P.No.1123 of 2009 dated 11.10.2013 (on a claim petition filed by the Respondents/Claimants), had resultantly held that the Respondents are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.18,20,000/- (including interim award, if any) and directed the Appellant/Transport Corporation to deposit the same with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the petition till the date of disposal of the claim petition. It further granted two months time for depositing the award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1123 of 2009. 3. It comes to be known that the Claims Tribunal, in the award, had stated that the Respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to 30% of the award amount while the Fifth Respondent/Fifth Claimant was entitled to 10% of the award amount. On such deposit being made, the Respondents 1 and 5/Claimants 1 and 5 were permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount and the balance 50% award amount was directed to be invested in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Moreover, the award amount in respect of the Minor Respondents 2 to 4/Minor Claimants 2 to 4 were directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit till the minors attain majority. The Tribunal directed the mother of the Minor Respondents/Claimants to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank for the maintenance of minors. 4. Assailing the correctness of the award passed by the Learned VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 11.10.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.1123 of 2009, the Appellant/Transport Corporation had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contending that the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1123 of 2009 is non-est and without any proper application of mind in regard to the computation of the award amount. 5. 5. Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss, Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Transport Corporation contends that the Tribunal had committed an error in fixing the salary of Rs.6,000/- on the date of accident i.e. 25.12.2008 and in fact, based on the Notification of the Government, the minimum wages would be only at the rate of Rs.100-120 and in the absence of clear proof of monthly salary, the Tribunal ought to have fixed salary at the rate of Rs.3,000/- for the aforesaid period of time. 6. In effect, the submission of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation is that the fixation of the salary of the deceased per month at Rs.6,000/- was on the higher side and as such, the same requires modification. Added further, it is the stand of the Appellant/Transport Corporation that the Tribunal should have fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and in short, the award of the Tribunal is against the well established Principles of Law. 7. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Transport Corporation that the Tribunal had fixed the other heads of compensation at its own whims and fancies. Also, it had failed to see that there was no evidence in regard to avocation, salary or the age of the deceased. 8. At this juncture, this Court, very pertinently points out that in the instant case, the Claims Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record and especially, taking into consideration Ex.P1 - First Information Report and Ex.P2 - Postmortem Certificate had come to a resultant conclusion that the Government bus bearing Regn. No.TN 21 N 0965 came from Chengalpet driven by its driver in a dangerous speed and also in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto in which the deceased was travelling. It cannot be gainsaid that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries and met with his untimely death. Apart from that, the Claims Tribunal had also taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 (eye-witness to the accident), who had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1/wife. 9. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was travelling on 25.12.2008 at about 6.30 hours in an auto bearing Regn. No.TN 32 Q 5229 from P.V.Kalathur to Chengalpet near Chengalpet-P.V.Kalathur separating road, was not disputed on the side of the Appellant. 9. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was travelling on 25.12.2008 at about 6.30 hours in an auto bearing Regn. No.TN 32 Q 5229 from P.V.Kalathur to Chengalpet near Chengalpet-P.V.Kalathur separating road, was not disputed on the side of the Appellant. In short, the view taken by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the Appellant/Transport Corporation bus could not be found fault with and this Court is in agreement with the view so taken in this regard. 10. In the present case, the Respondents/Claimants had claimed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation in their claim petition and finally restricted their claim to an extent of Rs.15 lakhs. Admittedly, the Respondents/Claimants were the wife, minor son and minor daughters and mother of the deceased. In short, all of them are sole surviving legal heirs of the deceased. 11. The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,20,000/- for the death of one Babu by awarding compensation amount under different heads and the calculation of the said amounts are mentioned as under: Loss of dependency : Rs.12,96,000/- Transport to Hospital : Rs. 14,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection and mental agony : Rs. 3,25,000/- Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,50,000/- Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/- = = = = = = = = Total Rs.18,20,000/- = = = = = = = = 12. It is seen from the certified copy of post mortem certificate viz., Ex.P2 that the husband of P.W.1 sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Ex.P3-Legal Heirship Certificate would unerringly point out that the Respondents/Claimants are the Legal Heirs of the deceased. As legal representatives of the deceased, they are entitled to claim compensation and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. In the transfer certificate, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 10.05.1976. At the time of accident i.e. on 25.12.2008, he was aged about 32 completed years and 7 months. However, the Claims Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased Babu as 30 years and stated that 50% income was to be added towards his future prospects. In fact, the Claims Tribunal had taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased Babu at Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased Babu as 30 years and stated that 50% income was to be added towards his future prospects. In fact, the Claims Tribunal had taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased Babu at Rs.6,000/- per month. As a matter of fact, the deceased Babu, as per the evidence of P.W.3, was stated to be working as Driver on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and on payment of daily batta of Rs.100/-. To lend support to the fact that the deceased Babu was serving as Driver and that P.W.3 paid a salary of Rs.10,000/-. Ex.P6, Salary Certificate was marked through him. Ultimately, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. 13. The Claims Tribunal had made a reference to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ( 2009 (6) SCC 121 ) and determined the age of the deceased at about 30 years at the time of accident and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and also added 50% of Rs.6,000/- towards future prospects of the income of the deceased and determined the sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. At this stage of the Appeal, we are not dislodging the said finding and sustain the same. Also, it may not be out of place for this Court to relevantly point out that the deceased Babu had left behind him five legal heirs and as such, 1/4th of his salary was deducted towards his personal expenses and his contribution was worked out as Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 3/4 = Rs.81,000/-. The Tribunal had applied multiplier of 16 for the death of the deceased, fixing the age at 30 and accordingly, it worked out the loss of dependency at Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.81,000/- x 16 = Rs.12,96,000/-). 14. Although the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- under the caption 'Transport to Hospital', on a perusal of para 21 of the claim petition, this Court finds that the Respondents/Claimants had claimed Rs.8,000/- under the head 'Transportation to Hospital'. As such, we award a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards 'Transport to Hospital' to the Respondents/Claimants. As regards clothing, articles etc., under the head 'Global Compensation', this Court as an equitable relief, grants Rs.2,000/-. As such, we award a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards 'Transport to Hospital' to the Respondents/Claimants. As regards clothing, articles etc., under the head 'Global Compensation', this Court as an equitable relief, grants Rs.2,000/-. As such, under the heads 'Transport to Hospital' and 'Global Compensation', this Court awards a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the Respondents/Claimants. The Tribunal, in regard to the funeral expenses, had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondents/Claimants and since this Court finds the said sum as a fair and equitable one, the same is not displaced by this Court and the said sum is sustained, in the interest of justice. 15. Coming to the aspect of 'Loss of love and affection and mental agony', the Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to the Respondents/Claimants. It is true that the First Respondent/First Claimant had lost her husband at a very young age and she is a widow. The First Respondent's deceased husband, because of his untimely death, had left behind the Respondents 2 to 4/minor children, being aged 6 years, 4 years and 1 year respectively and also left behind his mother, aged about 50 years. It is an axiomatic fact that money cannot renew a physical frame of a family that has been battered and shattered. Notwithstanding the fact that any amount of monetary compensation cannot bring back the deceased once again to life, it is the duty of the Court of Law or Tribunal to award as perfect a sum as is within its ambit. Of course, the compensation awarded must be a sensible one. At the same time, a Court of Law/Tribunal cannot award a bonanza or extravaganza in awarding a compensation. Bearing these in mind, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- awarded under the head 'Loss of love and affection and mental agony' is slightly on the higher side and we fix a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the said head. As regards the award of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' by the Claims Tribunal, this Court deems fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in this regard. As regards the 'Loss of estate', the Tribunal under this head, had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the same is sustained by this Court. As regards the award of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' by the Claims Tribunal, this Court deems fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in this regard. As regards the 'Loss of estate', the Tribunal under this head, had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the same is sustained by this Court. Thus, this Court awards a total compensation of Rs.17,66,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Sixty Six Thousand only) (inclusive of 'No fault Liability') to the Respondents/Claimants for the death of Babu. 16. Viewed in above perspective, this Court modifies the compensation granted by the Tribunal in its award in MCOP No.1123 of 2009 dated 11.10.2013 and awards a total compensation of Rs.17,66,000/- as stated supra. The said total compensation amount of Rs.17,66,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit is directed to be paid by the Appellant/Transport Corporation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Out of the said compensation amount, Minor Respondents 2 to 4/Claimants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- each and the Fifth Respondent/mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and the First Respondent/wife of the deceased is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.6,66,000/-. 17. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Appellant/Transport Corporation, at the time of preferring the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, had deposited Rs.25,000/- and further deposited a sum of Rs.12,26,000/- as per the interim orders passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in C.M.A.No.3001 of 2014 dated 20.10.2014. These amounts viz., Rs.25,000/- and Rs.12,26,000/- are directed to be deducted and the Appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation awarded by this Court within a period of six weeks as stated supra. 18. These amounts viz., Rs.25,000/- and Rs.12,26,000/- are directed to be deducted and the Appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation awarded by this Court within a period of six weeks as stated supra. 18. Further more, on such deposit being made before the Tribunal, the First Respondent/mother of the Minor Respondents 2 to 4 is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount (from and out of the sum awarded to her) by filing necessary payment out petition as envisaged under Civil Rules of Practice and the balance amount is ordered to be deposited by the Claims Tribunal in any one of the nationalised banks (nearest to the residence of the First Respondent), initially for a period of one year, which shall be renewed periodically (if situation so warrants). As regards the compensation amount awarded to the Minor Respondents 2 to 4, their share amounts are directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank (nearest to the residence of First Respondent/First Claimant) till they attain majority. In the interest of minors, the First Respondent (mother of the minors) is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued once in three months directly from the bank periodically. The Fifth Respondent/mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded by the Court by filing necessary payment out application before the Tribunal as per Civil Rules of Practice. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.