Judgment :- 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs.11,88,700/- for the death of one Umapathi in the accident, which occurred on 09.08.2008, while the deceased was in vehicle check-up in GWT Road and hit by the vehicle belonging to the 7th respondent insured with the appellant-Insurance company. Therefore, claim petition was filed. On contest, the Tribunal found that the car insured with the appellant-Insurance company was driven rash and negligently and awarded a sum of Rs.11,88,700/- as compensation. The said award is being challenged before this Court only on the question of quantum. 2. Heard Mr. C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.Singaravelan, representing for Mrs. M.Srividhya, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6/claimants. 3. The manner of the accident is not in dispute. The only question is to be gone into the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Head Constable and he was earning about Rs.11,379/- p.m. as per Ex.P8, Salary Certificate. The Tribunal took a sum of Rs.11,300/- as the monthly income and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1, as the family of the deceased consists of six members. Since the deceased was aged about 52 years, no amount was added towards additional income. Finally, a sum of Rs.8,475/- was taken as loss of income after deduction. As per the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier 11 was adopted and loss of income was rightly determined i.e. 11,300-1/4X12X11=11,18,700/-. The said determination cannot be found fault with and the same is confirmed. 4. As far as consortium of the first respondent is concerned only a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajesh & Others Vs. Rajbir Singh & Others reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883 at least one lakh should be awarded towards loss of consortium and accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded. 5. There are 4 children, one widow and one mother. Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for loss of happiness, love and affection, loss of dependency and mental agony and shock is too low and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. There are 4 children, one widow and one mother. Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for loss of happiness, love and affection, loss of dependency and mental agony and shock is too low and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. As no amount was awarded towards transportation and funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively are awarded. Totally, a sum of Rs.13,43,700/- is awarded. Rounded off to Rs.13,50,000/-. 6. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that split multiplier has to be adopted and the Tribunal wrongly adopted multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Honourable Supreme Court already decided as against the application of split multiplier in K.R.Madhusudan Vs. Administrative Officer reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 161 and in the case of Saraladevi & Others Vs. Divisional Manager, M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited & Another reported in 2014 AIR SCW 4993. 7. Though the Insurance Company has filed the appeal challenging the award of Rs.11,88,700/-, the same is enhanced to Rs.13,50,000/- by re-appreciating the evidence and also invoking Order 47 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, what is to be awarded is just compensation, as the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature. In an endeavour to complete justice only a sum of Rs.11,88,700/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.13,50,000/- in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company even in the absence of appeal/cross appeal by the claimants and for which, this Court has got power and jurisdiction. The rate of interest at 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 8. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire award amount, as per the award of the Tribunal, was already deposited and therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount, as per the award passed by this Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal. As far as the share of the minor viz., 5th respondent is concerned, the same shall be deposited in Indian Bank, High Court Branch, in interest bearing Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of three years and renewable periodically, till he attains majority. The 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw interest accruing on such deposit once in three months.