Judgment :- 1. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation has filed this appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil dated 13.3.1996 in M.C.O.P. No. 55 of 1989. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants. They have filed the said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- for the death of one Ramachandran, the husband of the first claimant and the father of the second claimant. It is the case of the claimants that on 6.12.89 at about 6.55 pm the deceased was riding his cycle on the left side of the Kanyakumari Road. At that time, the bus bearing Registration No. TCB 6590 owned by the appellant herein came in a high speed and dashed against the cycle. The deceased died on the spot. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The deceased was earning about Rs. 2000/- per month and since the family has lost the income, the claim petition has been filed. 2. the case of the appellant is that the deceased was riding the cycle having a clothes bundle on the carrier, as he was doing Dhobi work. When the bus tried to overtake him, the deceased lost control and fell on the bus and caught under the rear wheel of the bus. Hence, it cannot be said that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the evidence on both sides, has found that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,63,200/-. As against this, the present appeal had been filed. 3. Mr. Muniratnam, counsel for the appellant though tried to convince the Court that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and it is only due to the fact that the deceased had lost balance and fell down under the bus, he is not able to point out any infirmity in accepting the evidence of P.W. 2 by the Tribunal, who is an eye witness for the occurrence. Though it is said that the eye witness is a relative of the deceased that cannot be the sole ground to reject the evidence of P.W. 2, especially, when his evidence had not been challenged in the cross-examination. On the side of the appellants except the driver, no other person was examined. The driver also can be said to be equally interested. But however on that ground, his evidence cannot be rejected. Even if the case of the appellant is accepted, the driver has admitted the occurrence. But, his case is that the deceased lost control and fell under the bus and caught under the rear wheel of the bus. When the bus tried to overtake the deceased and crossed the deceased partly, it may not be possible for the driver to witness the occurrence. So he might not have seen the falling of the deceased by losing control. Only the Conductor or some other passengers who have travelled in the bus would be competent enough to speak about this aspect. It is not the case of the driver that he was informed by any other person about the deceased losing control and falling down. Hence the rejection of evidence of R.W. 1 the driver of the bus is proper. Accepting the evidence of P.W. 2 the eye witness, I am of the view that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. 4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that though P.W. 3 who is an employer of the deceased, has stated that he was paying a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the deceased for the washing of the clothes, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- and further the deceased alone could not have done the work. The family members also might have contributed their labour and as such the deceaseds contribution to the family can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 500/- and the amount fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 800/- is too high. I carefuly considered the contention of the learned counsel the accident took place in the year 1989. It is not the case of the appellant that the deceased was an employee under P.W. 3. P.W. 3, spoke about the payment made by him. 500/- and the amount fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 800/- is too high. I carefuly considered the contention of the learned counsel the accident took place in the year 1989. It is not the case of the appellant that the deceased was an employee under P.W. 3. P.W. 3, spoke about the payment made by him. When the deceased was not a permanent employee of P.W. 3, he is entitled to do the washing of clothes for others also and considering those factors, the Tribunal has fixed the sum of Rs. 1500/- as monthly income of the deceased. Out of this, the Tribunal has deducted one Rs. 300/- towards the expenses for the purchase of the washing materials and thereafter one third towards his personal expense. Altogether Rs. 700/- has been deducted and Rs. 800/- has been fixed towards the contribution to the family. I am of the view that even in case the family member had contributed their labour, the loss of income fixed at Rs. 800/-cannot be said to be excessive. It is only the deceased who might have collected the clothes and returned the same to the owners or customers. There is no suggestion to P.W. 1 with regard to the contribution by the family members, In the absence of any suggestion, the tribunal is right in fixing the loss of income at Rs. 800/- per month. Further the tribunal has adopted only 17 years multiplier considering the age of the deceased at 35 years. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also very reasonable. Hence, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal, which calls for interference by this court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the C.M.P. is also dismissed.