Judgment :- C.NAGAPPAN, J. Appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Vellore in M.C.O.P.No. 115 of 1997. The respondent-Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. 2.As per the averments in the petition, Ramachandran, who was employed as Office Assistant in Regional Inspector of Physical Education Department at Vellore was riding on his cycle on the left hand side of the highways road from Vellore to Madras and when he was going opposite to Ambedkar statue at Kagithapattarai, Vellore Town, the bus belonging to the 1st respondent Corporation was driven rashly and it hit upon him and he succumbed to the injuries. The widow and the children filed claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of Ramachandran. The Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the matter, awarded a total sum of Rs.4,14,000/- together with interest at 9 percent per annum. Aggrieved by the award, the Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation contends that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the bus is erroneous. P.W.2 is said to have witnessed the accident and according to him, the deceased came in his cycle along the mud portion of the road from west to east and the bus came behind rashly and dashed against him and he died on the spot. P.W.2 has reported the accident to the Police, pursuant to which a criminal case has been registered in Ex.P.1 first information report. R.W.1 is the bus driver and according to him, due to heavy rain lot of pits were found on the road and the cyclist, who was going before the bus fell into one of the pits causing the accident. It is relevant to note that except R.W.1, nobody else was examined to substantiate the contention of the respondent. The testimony of R.W1 cannot be accepted. P.W.2 in his complaint as well as in his testimony has narrated the way in which the accident happened and the trial court has rightly believed his evidence and came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the bus and we see no reason to interfere with that finding. 4.The deceased was working as an Office Assistant in Government Department and Ex.P.4 is his salary certificate. 4.The deceased was working as an Office Assistant in Government Department and Ex.P.4 is his salary certificate. As per the salary certificate, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs.917/-, D.A. Rs.1458/-, Interim Relief Rs.300/- , H.R.A.Rs.75/- and Medical Allowance Rs.50/-, in all Rs.2,800/- per mensem. There was revision of pay scales of all Government servants with effect from 1.1.1996 under the V Pay Commission. The deceased died on 9.12.1996 and his gross pay was Rs.4,000/- as per the revised scale and there is no dispute in it. The Tribunal made a deduction of Rs.1,500/- for personal expenses and fixed a sum of Rs.2,500/- as his monthly contribution to the family. As per Ex.P.3 school certificate, the deceased was aged 43 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier at 12 and calculated the loss of income to the family at Rs.3,60,000/-. The multiplicand and the multiplier adopted are correct. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the minor children, who are claimants 2 to 4, aged 9,5 and 3 respectively for loss of love and affection. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded to each of the children for loss of love and affection is on the higher side. Considering the age of the children, and in the interest of justice, we feel that no interference is called for in that sum awarded. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and determined the total sum of compensation at Rs.4,14,000/- and awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum. The compensation awarded is neither excessive nor exorbitant and we see no reason to interfere with the award. The appellant has not made out a case for admission of the appeal. 5.The appeal is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.14009 of 2002 is also dismissed.