Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nagarcoil in M.C.O.P. No. 34 of 1990. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. According to the claimants, on 3.8.1989, the deceased Ganapathy, was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. TCB 7613 belonging to the appellant/Corporation. It was driven by the driver of the Corporation in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased Ganapathy was thrown out of the bus in the back entrance in a curve near Esakkiamman temple at Kootumangalam. The accident happened at 530 p.m. on 3.8.1989. The victim was taken to the Neyyor hospital immediately. The doctor pronounced him as dead. The death was purely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus and the accident had happened. The deceased would have lived for another 52 years and the claimants would have received from him not less than Rs. 1,854/- per month till his marriage at the age of 30. The deceased was 23 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, according to the claimants, the claimants have incurred damages to the tune of Rs. 2,14,536/- Claimants 2 to 4 are other sisters and brothers of the deceased. 3. In the counter file by the first respondent in the Claim petition, the mode of the accident as stated in the Claim Petition was denied, when the bus was proceeding towards Monday market at Manavalakurichi, the bus was proceeding only in a slow speed along the left side of the road, a travelling passenger suddenly jumped down from the bus as his residence was nearer to the particular spot. In doing so, he sustained injuries. The contention that the passenger was thrown out through the back entrance while passing through the curve was false and denied. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The quantum of compensation claimed was also excessive. 4. In the counter filed by the second respondent in the claim petition, the contentions as raised in the counter of the first respondent were repeated. 5. On a consideration of the said pleadings and the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was only the result of the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant/Corporation. 4. In the counter filed by the second respondent in the claim petition, the contentions as raised in the counter of the first respondent were repeated. 5. On a consideration of the said pleadings and the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was only the result of the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant/Corporation. With reference to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 1,13,800/- as payable to the claimants. The present appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was sufficient evidence to show that the accident occurred only when the deceased Ganapathy had suddenly got out of the vehicle when the bus was proceeding in a non-stop place. He had obtained ticket only for Manavalakurichi, but got down at Kootumangalam because the said spot was nearer to his village. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the driver of the bus cannot at all be blamed and that at any rate the deceased himself was responsible for contributory negligence. 7. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents contends that the accident took place only at the corner of the bend in the road. It is also pointed out that it is not the case of the appellant that the deceased was standing on the foot-board. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides on the question of negligence. It is true that in the evidence it has been brought out that the deceased had purchased a ticket only for Manavalakurichi and that the place where the accident took place was nearer to his village. From this circumstances, it is sought to be contended by the appellant Corporation that the deceased tried to get down from the moving bus in a place nearer to his native village and that therefore, the driver of the bus cannot be held responsible for the accident. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the driver of the bus has not been examined. It is the admitted case of R.W.1, conductor of the Corporation bus, that he did not caution the passenger not to get down from the bus He has also admitted that he saw him only when he was getting down at the foot-board. It is further stated that he blew the whistle only after lie fell down from the bus. It is the admitted case of R.W.1, conductor of the Corporation bus, that he did not caution the passenger not to get down from the bus He has also admitted that he saw him only when he was getting down at the foot-board. It is further stated that he blew the whistle only after lie fell down from the bus. Therefore, in the absence of examination of the driver of the bus as a witness and the unsatisfactory evidence of R.W.1, conductor, it is not possible to set aside the finding of the Tribunal which has been rendered after detailed examination of the evidence. On behalf of the claimant, a reference is also made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 1 L.W. 226 ( Jaganathan, M. v. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., etc. ). In that case, it was held that while passengers alighted from the bus where the vehicle stopped due to traffic jam, it was the duty of the driver or conductor to caution the passengers when they attempted to get down, irrespective of the fact whether that place is a bus stop or not. Therefore, I am unable to set aside the finding of the Tribunal with reference to the negligence part of the accident. 9. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that claimants 2 and 3 being unmarried sister and brother of the deceased, are disentitled to claim compensation in as much as they are not dependants of the deceased. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court reported in 1987 A.C.J. 1020 ( National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bhramar Rout ) in support of his contention that major brothers are not entitled to claim compensation. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1690 ( G.S.R.T. Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai ). In that case, after considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Fatal Accidents Act, 1955, the Supreme Court held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident was entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A if he was a legal representative. In that case, after considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and Fatal Accidents Act, 1955, the Supreme Court held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident was entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A if he was a legal representative. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were in consonance with the principles of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It was further held that in an Indian family, brother, sister and brothers children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there was no justification to deny them compensation relying upon provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. 10. Therefore, it follows that objections taken by learned counsel for the respondents in the said context, cannot be sustained. Apart from the ruling of the Supreme Court as referred to above it is also seen that in the present case, the Appellant Corporation has not pleaded that the claimants are not dependants of the deceased. 11. With reference to the quantum of compensation, it is true that the Tribunal has adopted a very complicated method of calculation in arriving at the total compensation payable to the claimants. Therefore, on a fab-calculation, it has to be seen as to whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal would represent just and fair compensation. In the present case, in the evidence, it has been clearly brought out and correctly found by the Tribunal also that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,280/-. Even by treating Rs. 1,000/- as contribution to the family and adopting a multiplier of 16 the total amount of loss of income itself comes to Rs. 1,92,000/- not to speak about other heads of compensation to which the claimants would be entitled, such as pain and suffering, loss of love and affection etc. In the present case, the total compensation awarded is only Rs. 1,13,800/- and therefore, I do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. In the present case, the total compensation awarded is only Rs. 1,13,800/- and therefore, I do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. There is no justification to interfere with the quantum of the award fixed by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, there are no grounds to interfere with in the above appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.