JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, in M.A.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2004, dated 30.03.2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, by which, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,69,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to the legal representatives of the deceased Alphones Frederick, a Foreman in BHEL, National Insurance Company Limited, has filed the present appeal. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal, are that on 07.09.2002 at 07.30 p.m., when the deceased Alphones Frederick was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-45-M-7097 on Trichy - Thanjavur road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TMN-5072 owned by the first respondent driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the deceased and fled away from the place of occurrence. The deceased succumbed to the injuries caused due to the accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 50 years and was working as a Foreman in BHEL and earned a sum of Rs.14,742/- per month. He had also received Rs.11,000/- towards bonus per year. The claimants sought for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) under various heads. 3. Resisting the claim petition, Insurance Company filed a counter statement and denied the claim and prayed for the dismissal of the same. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W. 5 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 have been marked. Ex.C.1 - F.I.R in Cr.No.167 of 2002 was also marked. No oral nor documentary evidence was let in, on the side of the respondents. 5. Evaluating the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and awarded a sum of Rs.15,69,500/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as compensation and apportioned the same as under: Sl. No. Claimants Amounts 1. 1st Claimant/Wife Rs. 8,00,000/- 2. 2nd Claimant/Son Rs. 3,50,000/- 3. 3rd Claimant/Daughter Rs. 3,50,000/- 4. 4th Claimant/Father Rs. 69,500/- Challenging the same, the insurer of the lorry/appellant Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal. 6. No. Claimants Amounts 1. 1st Claimant/Wife Rs. 8,00,000/- 2. 2nd Claimant/Son Rs. 3,50,000/- 3. 3rd Claimant/Daughter Rs. 3,50,000/- 4. 4th Claimant/Father Rs. 69,500/- Challenging the same, the insurer of the lorry/appellant Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal. 6. Assailing the correctness of the award, the appellant herein has contended that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the lorry bearing Registration No.TMN-5072, insured with the appellant, was involved in the accident and that the driver of the said lorry was negligent for the same, solely on the basis of F.I.R and admission of guilt by the driver before the criminal Court. In this regard, the appellant has also contended that there was a collusion between the police and respondents. 7. On the quantum of compensation, the appellant Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, when the fact remains that the monthly salary was only Rs.14,572/- and further contended that the loss of contribution arrived at by the Tribunal on that basis, is erroneous. It is also the contention of the appellant that had the deceased been alive, he would have continued in employment in BHEL, only for ten years and therefore, application of multiplier 13 is on the higher side. The appellant has contended that overall compensation is on the higher side. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 9. Before the Tribunal, wife as P.W.1, has adduced evidence, reiterating the manner of the accident. However, she was not an eyewitness. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that during investigation, he came to know that P.W.2 was a cleaner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TMN-5072. 10. P.W.2 - Senthilkumar, cleaner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TMN-5072, has deposed that because of the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry, the accident has occurred. That apart, the claimants have produced Ex.P.1 - copy of the F.I.R; Ex.P.4- copy of the charge sheet; Ex.P.8 - judgment rendered in the criminal case, wherein the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TMN-5072, was found guilty of the charges made against him. 11. That apart, the claimants have produced Ex.P.1 - copy of the F.I.R; Ex.P.4- copy of the charge sheet; Ex.P.8 - judgment rendered in the criminal case, wherein the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TMN-5072, was found guilty of the charges made against him. 11. Analysing the oral testimony of P.W.2 - cleaner of the offending lorry and P.W.5 - Investigating Officer, the Tribunal has categorically found that there was absolutely no ground to discard their cogent evidence. Thus, the oral testimony of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, is duly supported by independent eyewitness, namely, P.W.2- cleaner of the offending lorry, and also by P.W.5 - Investigating Officer. 12. Their oral testimony is also corroborated by Ex.P.1 - copy of the F.I.R; Ex.P.4 - copy of the charge sheet; Ex.P.8 - judgment rendered in the criminal case. 13. In N.K.V. Brother's Private Limited v. Kurmai reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 , while dealing with the scope of the enquiry in the Claims Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "Accident Claims Tribunal, must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plaint cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving." 14. In a decision in Union of India v. Saraswathi Debnath reported in 1995 ACJ 980, High Court of Gauhati at Paragraph 6 held as follows: "The law is well settled that in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the evidence should not be scrutinised in a manner as is done in a civil suit or a criminal case. In a civil case the rule is preponderance of probability and in a criminal case the rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to consider these niceties in a matter of accident claim case inasmuch as it is summary enquiry. If there is some evidence to arrive at the finding that itself is sufficient. In a civil case the rule is preponderance of probability and in a criminal case the rule is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not necessary to consider these niceties in a matter of accident claim case inasmuch as it is summary enquiry. If there is some evidence to arrive at the finding that itself is sufficient. No nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with the Claims Tribunal in deciding a motor accident claim case." 15. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal RTC reported in 2009 (13) SCC 530 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties." It is the well settled law that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and it is suffice to consider, whether there is any preponderance of probability, as to the manner of accident, as detailed in the claim petition. Strict proof of evidence is not required. Finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence cannot be termed as perverse or it is not a case of no evidence. 16. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, the contentions to the contra, stated supra, cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts. 17. On the contention that there is error in the determination of monthly income, materials on record discloses that on the date of the accident, the deceased was employed in BHEL, as a Foreman. To prove the avocation and monthly income, P.W.4 - Labour Welfare Officer, examined, has deposed that the deceased Alphones Frederick, was employed as a Foreman and at the time of the accident, he was paid Rs.14,752/- per month. He has also deposed that had the deceased been alive, he would have been in employment, till the attainment of 60 years. 18. Having regard to the date of birth of the deceased as 22.10.1952, the Labour Welfare Officer has further deposed that the deceased would have gained promotion, hike in salary and future prospects. He has also deposed that had the deceased been alive, he would have been in employment, till the attainment of 60 years. 18. Having regard to the date of birth of the deceased as 22.10.1952, the Labour Welfare Officer has further deposed that the deceased would have gained promotion, hike in salary and future prospects. 19. To support the avocation and income, Ex.P.10 - report on the promotions and increments of the salary of the deceased, has been filed. Ex.P.11 is the xerox copy of the Service Register of the deceased. Upon perusal of Ex.P.5 - salary certificate, the Tribunal has noticed that the basic salary of the deceased, at the time of the accident was Rs. 9,130/-. Having regard to the oral testimony of P.W.4 - Labour Welfare Officer, BHEL and Ex.P.10 - report, the Tribunal has also noticed that had the deceased been alive, there would have been chances for promotion, at three levels. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence stated supra, more particularly, the possibility of hike in salary and promotion, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.15,000/- as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to his family. 20. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has properly analysed the oral and documentary evidence to determine the monthly income of the deceased and the contentions to the contra, made in this appeal cannot be accepted. 21. As regards the contention that the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier 13 for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family, and considering the age of the deceased as 50 years and the remaining period of service, the Tribunal ought to have applied only multiplier 10 for the purpose of computation of compensation, this Court is not inclined to accept the same for the reason that having regard to the variations in the multiplier applied in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas reported in 1994(2) SCC 176 , UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 (4) SCC 362 and in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v. Charlie reported in 2005(1) TN MAC (SC) and the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another (SC) reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) has standardised the multiplier, for different age group of persons. For the age of persons 46 to 50, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the multiplier, as 13. 22. Determination of age of the deceased as 50 years, has been done, taking note of the entries in the Service Register. Though it is contended that a lesser multiplier ought to have been applied, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as stated supra. Contentions of the appellant is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. That apart, going through the award, it could be seen that at the time of death of the deceased Alphones Frederick, the first respondent/wife was aged 42 years. She has lost consortium of her husband and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- only. 24. In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. At paragraph 17, it is held as hereunder: "In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 25. At the time of filing the claim petition, the children/respondents 2 and 3 were aged 16 and 15 years respectively and they have lost love and affection of their father. Father of the deceased aged about 75 years, has lost love and affection of his son. For all the respondents, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection', at Rs.2,500/- each. 26. In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,500/- under the head 'Funeral Expenses'. 27. In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. At this juncture, we take on record, what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said in Rajesh's case, as regards funeral expenses and at paragraph No.21, it is held as follows: "We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-." 28. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-." 28. Going through the entire award, with reference to the grounds raised in this appeal, we are of the view that there is no manifest illegality in the award, in arriving at the conclusion on negligence that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TMN-5072 insured with the appellant and the method adopted for quantifying the compensation. 29. Quantum of compensation awarded under many heads is meagre. The overall compensation cannot be said to be bonanza to the legal representatives of the deceased who have lost their sole breadwinner. 30. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Appeal dismissed.