JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. 1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal at the consent of both the learned counsel. 2. This appeal is preferred by the claimants in MVC No. 33/2008 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, wherein a total compensation of Rs. 3,08,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. was awarded to them for the death of one Surendran @ Suri in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 29.7.2008. 3. The claimants are the wife and son of the deceased. It is their case that on 29.7.2008, the deceased was traveling in a lorry bearing Regn. No. KA-21/D-5499 as a cleaner of the said lorry along with iron materials and the said lorry when it reached near a cattle shed at bye-pass road, got punctured and it was stationed on the left side of the road. On 31.7.2008 at about 1.00 p.m. the driver and cleaner were proceeding to take their food, at that time, a car bearing Regn. No. TN-23/AP-2277 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head, back and other parts of his body and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 4. A claim petition was filed seeking a total compensation of Rs. 10,20,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. Exs.P1 to P3 were got marked. Ex.C1 was marked as court document. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs. 3,08,800/- with interest at 8% p.a. on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 2,68,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Transportation of dead-body and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 5. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 3,08,800/- 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that though the deceased was working as a cleaner and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from his work and in addition, he was doing business and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. however, the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the income at Rs. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that though the deceased was working as a cleaner and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from his work and in addition, he was doing business and earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. however, the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the income at Rs. 80/- per day. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation under other heads and therefore he submits that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which is based on evidence and material on record. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to dismiss the appeal. 8. The accident in question and the negligence on the part of driver of car bearing Regn. No. TN-23/AP 2277 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the car was insured with the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the claimants/appellants that the deceased was working as a cleaner of the lorry and he was also doing business and earning a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. To substantiate the same, the wife of the deceased has been examined herself as PW-1. Apart from her oral evidence, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. However, considering that the accident of the year 2008, I deem it appropriate to take the national income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- p.m. The deceased was aged 42 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the multiplier applicable is ‘14’. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, the total compensation which the claimants are entitled under the head loss of dependency would come to Rs. 5,04,000/- (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 14). The same is awarded as against Rs. 2,68,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is also seen that under the conventional heads, a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount is enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-. 5,04,000/- (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 14). The same is awarded as against Rs. 2,68,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is also seen that under the conventional heads, a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount is enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-. Hence, the claimants/appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,74,000/- as against Rs. 3,08,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER: Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 8.2.2010 passed in MVC No. 33/2008 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, KGF, is hereby modified. The appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,74,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,65,200/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.