Judgment :- 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation represented by the Managing Director/2nd respondent in MCOPs No. 43 and 274 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Erode, have preferred these two appeals aggrieved against the award dated 06.04.2000. 2. The case in brief for disposal of both the appeals is as follows: — The deceased Sakthivel was riding a motor cycle along with pillion rider Ravi on 06.04.1997 in Vaththalakundu Dindigul Main Road. At about 7.45 p.m. near the junction of Muthalampuram, the 1st respondent drove the bus bearing No. TN 57 N 0351 belonging to the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and as a result of which, both of them sustained injuries and died. The deceased Sakthivel was age d 22 years and qualified in Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and had training for a period of one year in Jeeva Transport Corporation. He was working as a Manager in Pazhani Andavar Automobiles, Erode on a salary of Rs. 5,000/= and his legal heirs filed MCOP No. 43 of 1998 claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/= by way of compensation. The deceased Ravi then aged 29 years was running his own power loom factory and drawing a sum of Rs. 3,000/= per month. His legal heirs filed MCOP No. 274 of 1988 claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/= by way of compensation. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the Motor cycle and the 4th respondent is the insurance company. The 2nd respondent resisted these applications alleging that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, but only due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. The tribunal on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and R.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-18 passed an award for Rs. 2,50,000/= in MCOP No. 43 of 1998 and Rs. 3,50,000/= in MCOP No. 274 of 1998 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Aggrieved against this, the 2nd respondent have come forward with the present appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus? Aggrieved against this, the 2nd respondent have come forward with the present appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus? (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the court below in both the cases are correct? 5. Points: It is admitted that deceased Sakthivel was driving the motor cycle and deceased Ravi was the pillion rider. The accident took place on 06.04.1997 at about 7.45 p.m. The claimants mainly contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus; but R.W.1 contended that there was no negligence on his part and on the other hand, the deceased Sakthivel was responsible for this occurrence. P.W.3 has been examined as an eye witness to speak about the occurrence because he was one of the passengers in the bus. Ex.A- 4 is the charge sheet and P.W.3 is also cited as one of the witnesses. There was no mechanical defect in the vehicle also, can be seen from the certificate Ex.A-3. Considering the evidence of P.W.3 as well as R.W.I and the charge sheet only, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of R.W.I and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. No police officer was examined to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The amount of compensation awarded under various heads is also excessive. The Tribunal erred in applying 18 years multiplier without considering the age of the parents and also contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court. The deceased was a bachelor and he could not contribute anything to his parents immediately after the marriage. 7. It is stated that the deceased Sakthivel, aged about 22 was holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and had training for a period of one year in Jeeva Transport Corporation. He was working as a Manager in one Automobiles Company and drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000/=. No doubt, the deceased was not married. Documents have been filed to prove his qualification and age. He was working as a Manager in one Automobiles Company and drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000/=. No doubt, the deceased was not married. Documents have been filed to prove his qualification and age. The parents of the deceased were aged about 40 and 50 years and based upon the particulars given in the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act only, multiplier of 18 has been adopted. The salary certificate Ex.A-8 has also been filed and P.W.2 was also examined to prove the same. Whatever it may be the Tribunal has determined the monthly salary of the deceased only as Rs. 2,500/= and calculating the same for a period of 10 years, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/= was fixed as compensation. Even after the marriage, the monthly contribution was determined at Rs. 500/= and for a period of 8 years, it was worked out at Rs. 48,000/=. A sum of Rs. 2,000/= was awarded towards cremation expenses and in all, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/= was awarded and in my view, the award amount is a reasonable and proper one and no interference is called for. 8. The deceased Ravichandran was also a bachelor and aged about 29. The age was determined based upon the post mortem report under Ex.A-15. He had run his own power loom about 16 in number and he was also doing finance business under the name and style under Jayasakthi Finance and apart from that, he was also a partner in other concern, thereby earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/= per month. Number of documents were filed to prove his status and also employment. However, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/= and for a period of one year, it would be Rs. 60,000/=. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, the family would be benefited by Rs. 40,000/=. The parents of the deceased were aged about 52 and 60 years. The income per year was worked out to Rs. 40,000/= and for a period of six years, it was calculated at Rs. 2,40,000/=. After his marriage, the family would be benefited by Rs. 700/= per month and the amount for a period of one year i.e. Rs. 8,400/= multiplied by 12 arrived at Rs. 1,08,000/=. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and it was calculated into two periods, for six years at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/=. After his marriage, the family would be benefited by Rs. 700/= per month and the amount for a period of one year i.e. Rs. 8,400/= multiplied by 12 arrived at Rs. 1,08,000/=. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and it was calculated into two periods, for six years at the rate of Rs. 40,000/= per annum and for 12 years at Rs. 8,400/= per annum. Rs. 2,000/= was awarded towards cremation expenses and totally a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/= was awarded. Considering the age of the deceased and the position he occupied and the income realised, the compensation award is reasonable and proper. So far as the interest is concerned, it was calculated at 12%; but in view of the ruling of the Apex Court, it is reduced to 9% per annum. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed in part and interest alone is reduced to 9% from 12% and in other respects, the awards are confirmed. Consequently, CMP Nos. 1521 and 1522 of 2002 are closed.