Judgment :- The Judgment was delivered by : This appeal is directed against the award passed by Motor, Accidents Claim Tribunal (Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram) in M.C.O.Ps. No. 647 of 90. The first claimant is the husband of the deceased Susaiammal and claimants 2 and 3 are minor son and daughter of the deceased. 2. The case of the claimant is that on 31-8-89 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased was travelling in the respondent's bus bearing registration No. TML 6063 from Kodaranthal to Paramkudi and that when the bus stopped near Krishna theatre, the deceased was alighting from the bus and at that time, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and that she was taken to Government Hospital, Paramakudi and then the Madurai Rajaji Hospital where she succumbed to injuries and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent bus driver. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 3,09,600/- under various heads. 3. The respondent filed counter-stating that when the bus was proceeding near Hariayananthal one of the rear wheels became leaky and therefore, the driver had to drive the bus slowly and that the driver stopped the bus near Krishna theatre and after alighting the passengers, the bus was moving slowly and at a distance of 250 feet away from Krishna theatre, Susaiammal suddenly without informing the Conductor jumped from the bus and fell down on the road and that therefore she sustained injuries, and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The amount claimed by the claimant is excessive. 4. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and neligent driving of the driver, on the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75,700/- under various heads with interest at 12%. The tribunal has also apportioned the compensation amount between the claimants. 5. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation/respondent has filed this appeal. 6. 75,700/- under various heads with interest at 12%. The tribunal has also apportioned the compensation amount between the claimants. 5. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation/respondent has filed this appeal. 6. It is contended by the appellant that there is no evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent driver and that the claimants have not produced any document to prove the actual income earned by the deceased and loss of income due to the death of the deceased. 7. As regards the first point is concerned, the claimants have examined P.W. 2, P.W. 2 has stated that he and Susaiammal travelled in the same bus and that Susaiammal asked the driver to stop the bus at Krishna theatre and that accordingly, the bus was stopped at Krishna theatre and that when Susaiammal was alighting from the bus, the driver suddenly moved the bus and that therefore, Susaiammal fell down. P.W. 2 has also stated that fire service constable took the injured to the hospital. In cross-examination also P.W. 2 has stated that the decaesed informed the conductor that she would get down from the bus. It is suggested to P.W. 2 that the deceased without informing the driver and conductor suddenly attempted to get down from the bus and that therefore, the incident occurred. P.W. 2 has no motive to depose against the respondents. The mere fact that both the deceased and P.W. 2 belong to the same village is not a valid ground to discard the evidence of P.W. 2. There is no evidence contra. The evidence of P.W. 2 will clearly prove the case of the claimants that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver. I see no grounds to differ from the finding of the tribunal on this aspect of the case. 8. Though the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 75,700/- P.W. 1 the husband of the deceased has stated that the deceased was earning some amount in tailoring and that she used to earn Rs. 20/- per day. P.W. 1 has stated that he was carrying on business in timber depot and that his wife was assisting him. The tribunal has held that there is no evidence to show that Susaiammal was earning Rs. 20/- per day in tailoring work. 20/- per day. P.W. 1 has stated that he was carrying on business in timber depot and that his wife was assisting him. The tribunal has held that there is no evidence to show that Susaiammal was earning Rs. 20/- per day in tailoring work. Even though, there is no evidence to prove as to what was the income realised by P.W.1 in timber depot business, the tribunal has accepted that the deceased was rendereing some assistance to her husband in timber depot business. As the deceased died, there was no other female in the family of P.W. 1 to look after the house and household duties. The evidence of P.W.1 that his wife was rendering some assistance in his business appears to be acceptable. Therefore, the tribunal is justified in estimating the loss at Rs. 6/- per day. The loss of income due to death of the deceased would come to Rs. 180/- per month. The deceased was aged about 27 years on the date of the death. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the tribunal has held that the deceased would have at least lived up to the age of 55 years and rendered assistance to her husband. The tribunal has held that if the annual loss of income at Rs. 2160/- is accepted, the total loss of income for 28 years will come to Rs. 60,480/-. As the first claimant has lost his wife, he is entitled to compensation under the head loss of consortium. The tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 10,000/- on the above head. Claimants 2 and 3rd are minor children. They have lost the love and affection of their mother due to the accident. Therefore, the tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 5000/- That apart, the tribunal has also awarded Rs. 220/- the expenditure incurred for taking the deceased to the hospital. Thus, the tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 75,700/-. The determination of the compensation amount under various heads by the tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. In the above circumstances, the contention of the appellant that there is no basis for awarding such an amount by the tribunal cannot be accepted. It held that the compensation determined by the tribunal is based on admitted facts and materials. There are no merits in the appeal. 9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs. In the above circumstances, the contention of the appellant that there is no basis for awarding such an amount by the tribunal cannot be accepted. It held that the compensation determined by the tribunal is based on admitted facts and materials. There are no merits in the appeal. 9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs. The award passed by the tribunal is confirmed. The counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 1000/-. Appeal dismissed.