In assessing compensation for loss of income due to death in a motor accident, the court should consider the actual income of the deceased and apply a reasonable multiplier based on the age and circumstances of the deceased.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

1. Claimants are the appellants in the above appeal. The wife and children of the deceased Kushiram, who died in an accident that took place on 22-9-82, have filed M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83 on the file of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Salem, claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Inasmuch as neither the owner nor the insurer of the lorry or the Transport Corporation, namely, Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore, filed any appeal in respect of the pect against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83, we are not referring any of the factual pects leading to the accident.

2. As stated above, the wife and children of the deceased Kushiram filed claim for Rs. 6,00,000/-before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. According to them, the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and he was doing textile business earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In order to prove income and compensation, the third claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83 was examined as P.W. 7. He is none else than the son of the deceased Kushiram. They also marked income-tax demand notices and payment of income-tax prior to the death of Kushiram. On the basis of the oral evidence of P.W. 7 and in the light of the documents produced, by applying 10 years multiplier, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards monetary loss from which it deducted 1/4th towards lump-sum payment and uncertainty of life. After adding a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs. 3,000/- to each of the minor children towards loss of life and affection due to the death of their father, ultimately the Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of the petition in favour of the claimants and payable by Respondents 1 & 2. Against the disallowed claim, the claimants have now filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appeal appellants contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding a paltry sum of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the claimants, considering the age, status and earnings of the deceased business man. He also contended that in the light of Exs. P-192 to 199 to 201, the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the claimants are entitled only a sum of Rs. 500/- per month due to the death of the deceased. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that in as much as the children of the deceased are continuing the business even after the death of their father, they had not lost anything due to the death of their father. He also raised an objection that the deceased was aged about 40, the application of 10 years multiplier is very low and ought to have applied reasonable multiplier for fixing the compensation. With these points he relied upon a decision in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., v. Vasanihi Alias Anantha Lakshmi (1995) 1 M.L.J. 388 (Division Bench) and in Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash (1991 ACJ 3). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent, insurer contended that in the light of the evidence available on record and in view of the fact that the family business is being continued by the sons of the deceased Kushiram, the award of the Tribunal is quite reasonable. He also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in the case of M.G. Brothers Lorry Service v. S. Andalammal (1982 (Supp.) A.C.J. 408) (Madras).

4. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the counsel. Against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 65,000/-. It is to be seen that first claimant is a widow (second wife of the deceased) and other claimants, namely, claimants 2 to 9 are children of the deceased, out of which five are minors. While travelling in the bus belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, the deceased Kushiram met with an accident. In order to prove compen