Judgment 1. The appellant is the transport corporation. The only question that is raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 15' while it should have been 14', since the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident. 2. In an accident which occurred on 29.08.2007, husband of the 1st respondent/claimant and father of the respondents/claimants 2 and 3 died. They have laid a claim petition in MCOP.No.4 of 2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court / EC Act Special Court, Thanjavur, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Resisting the claim petition, the appellant filed a counter affidavit disputing the manner of accident and also the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 3. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1. PW2 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the appellant, the driver of the transport corporation bus was examined as RW1, but they did not choose to mark any documentary evidence. 4. Upon evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.5,87,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum under the following heads:- Loss of income = (Rs.3000X12X15) Rs.5,40,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Funeral and Transportation Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs.5,87,000/- Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, more particularly, application of 15' multiplier, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. In support of the contention that the Tribunal has erred in applying 15' multiplier for computing the dependency compensation, instead of 14', learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC). 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows, to substantiate that the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident, the claimants have marked Ex.P2-Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P4-Legal heirship Certificate. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC). 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows, to substantiate that the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident, the claimants have marked Ex.P2-Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P4-Legal heirship Certificate. In a decision reported in The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai v. Mary [ 2005 (5) CTC 515 ], this Court has held that in the absence of proof relating to the age, such as birth extract or any supporting document, entry in the Post-mortem Report, can always be considered for the purpose of computation of compensation. In the instant case, the age of the deceased, as per Ex.P2 - Post-mortem Certificate, is 44 years and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly determined the age of the deceased as 44 years. 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in applying 15' multiplier for computing the dependency compensation, instead of 14', as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), I am not inclined to subscribe to the said contention, as the compensation awarded under the heads, 'loss of consortium' and 'loss of love and affection' is meagre. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied on a judgment in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in (2013 (3) CTC 883),wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that at least rupees one lakh should be awarded as compensation for the Loss of Consortium. Following the ratio of the above said decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Maheswari vs M/S.Supreme India Roadlines (CMA.No.395 of 2009, decided on 21.10.2013), has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards "loss of consortium". Even for the minor child, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for the loss of love and affection. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, it should have been more. Hence, it is submitted that the award need not be interfered with. 9. I am in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 10. Hence, it is submitted that the award need not be interfered with. 9. I am in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 10. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of MCOP.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court / EC Act Special Court, Thanjavur, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal by making appropriate application before the Tribunal.