Judgment :- Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. 2. Aggrieved over the Award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Nagercoil, the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground of negligence and of quantum. 3. According to the claimants, namely, the wife and daughter of the deceased, on 14.6.1987 at about 2.30 p.m. when the deceased was riding the Scooter by going on the left side of the road, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Scooterist, the deceased and the pillion rider, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. 4. The case of the appellant Corporation through R.W.1 is that the driver was not responsible for the accident and the deceased alone was responsible for the accident. However, the Tribunal as against the total claim of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, awarded Rs. 2,42,000/- holding that the driver was negligent. 5. Mr. M. Dhandapani, the counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation, while assailing the order of the Tribunal, would contend that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness and R.W.1, the driver in the proper perspective with reference to the negligence. He would also point out that the deceased Robert did not have valid driving licence and that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooter. 6. In reply to the said submission. Mr. Sreekumaran Nair, the counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, the claimants, would submit that the reasonings given by the Tribunal for taking the view that the driver alone was negligent, was valid and proper. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. 8. In the accident, admittedly, two persons sustained injuries. The deceased Robert was the husband of the first claimant. The pillion rider Agastin who also sustained injuries gave the complaint to the police immediately after the accident, which was registered by the police against the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation. In the F.I.R., the name of P.W.2 has been mentioned as one of the eye witnesses. Apart from that, the sketch prepared by the police also has been marked in this case. 9. In the F.I.R., the name of P.W.2 has been mentioned as one of the eye witnesses. Apart from that, the sketch prepared by the police also has been marked in this case. 9. In a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, the F.I.R. Ex. P3 and the sketch Ex. P4, it is revealed that the deceased was riding the Scooter in the South-North road along with the pillion rider Agastin and turned to the left side in the main road for proceeding towards the western side and at that time, the bus which was coming in the opposite direction with a great speed hit against the Scooter and dragged the Scooterist and the pillion rider along with Scooter to a considerable distance of 40 feet. 10. The perusal of the sketch also would make it clear that the distance between the place of the impact and where the bus was-stopped after dragging the Scooter is quite considerable. So, on the basis of these materials, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and as such, the appellant-Corporation is liable to pay the compensation. 11. Admittedly the width of the road is 26 feet. The place of impact is situated at 3 feet from the left side corner. Therefore, space of 19 feet is available in the main road. The bus which was coming from West to East could have very well avoided the accident, if it was proceeding towards East by using the space of 19 feet. This also would reveal that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner due to which the accident took place. 12. Regarding the quantum, it is pointed out that on the basis of longevity theory, multiplier of 28 years has been adopted. No doubt, it is true that the Apex Court has given the guidelines to the effect that the multiplier theory is appropriate, instead of longevity theory and that the maximum multiplier would be 18. 13. Even if the multiplier of 18 is adopted in this case, by adding some more amounts towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, in my view, the total compensation which would be worked out would come near the same figure awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Even if the multiplier of 18 is adopted in this case, by adding some more amounts towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, in my view, the total compensation which would be worked out would come near the same figure awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not want to interfere in the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.