1. The wife, aged 28 years, daughters aged 12, 7 and 4 years respectively, and the mother, having died during the pendency of the claim petition, filed the claim petition for compensation, in respect of the death of Mahalingam, at Rs.7,00,000/-.

2. The deceased was an Artist and name-puncher in Steel, Silver and Brass utensils, aged 39 years, earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, met with a fatal accident and died on 15.04.1996. The Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- and the breakup details are as furnished here-under:-

Loss of income - Rs.1,80,000/-

Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/-

Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/-

Loss of love and affection - Rs. 5,000/-

Rs.2,00,000/-

3. Aggrieved over the inadequacy of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

4. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has chosen to adopt the notional income of Rs.1,500/- per month and the contribution of the deceased to the family has been taken at Rs.1,000/-. From these details, it is clear that, 1/3rd has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Adopting the multiplier of 15' the loss of income has been calculated.

5. Whether the quantification done by the Tribunal is justified, is the issue to be considered, in this appeal.

6. The wife of the deceased has given evidence as P.W.1. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is clearly stated that the work of her husband was not confined to any particular shop, but he was doing the same by going around the streets and attending the job in the needed houses and shops. Even though the evidence of the wife has been extracted in the judgment, in paragraph 10, the Tribunal did not give any reasons, as to why the evidence of the wife has not been accepted or could not be accepted. The wife has clearly stated that for engraving one letter, the deceased used to charge Rs.1/-. This specific rate, as spoken to in the evidence of P.W.1, could not have been given, unless her husband is really engaged in the name engraving work. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.1,500/-, without even giving reasons as to why the evidence of the claimant was not accepted.

7. In such circumstances, the evidence given by the wife should be accepted and the monthly income has to be taken at Rs.3,000/-. In view of the sky-rocketing inflation in prices of commodities, his income would have also been steadily increased. This aspect has also not been taken into account.

8. Considering the future prospective increase in income, having regard to the age of the deceased at 39', 50% increase ought to have been considered and if that is taken, the monthly income would be Rs.4,500/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,500/-).

9. The Tribunal has mechanically deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. When the age of the claimants are 12, 7 and 4, respectively, and when the evidence of the wife is that they were not able to send the children to school for education, because of insufficiency of income, the Tribunal should have considered, whether any person having three daughters, parents and wife, can spend 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. Mechanically, the Tribunal, without application of mind, has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. When the dependents are large in number, it is unjustifiable to deduct 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. Therefore, it is only 1/4th at the most, that could be deducted towards the personal expenses. In that case, taking the monthly dependency at Rs.3,375/- (Rs.4,500/- - Rs.1,125/-) and adopting multiplier of 15', the loss of income would be Rs.6,07,500/- (Rs.3,375/- x 12 x 15). Children (appellants 2 to 4) have lost their father, without any guidance and support, at the age of 12, 7 and 4 respectively, as described earlier. Therefore, the loss of love and affection is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. The wife has lost her husband at the age of 28',