Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree, dated 03.11.2004, made in MCOP No.250 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai.) P.Sathasivam, J Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Thanjavur, is the appellant. 2. In respect of death of one Rengasamy in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 20.02.2002, the respondents herein preferred a claim for Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after finding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus, passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,94,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit of the award amount. Questioning the same, the transport corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant transport corporation would submit that in the light of the evidence of R.W.1, namely their driver, the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal holding that the driver alone was negligent and responsible for the accident cannot be sustained. He also contended that in the absence of acceptable evidence regarding avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. On going through the materials placed, we are unable to accept both the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for the following reasons. 5. Insofar as the contention relating to the negligence is concerned, it is the case of P.W.3, who is said to have witnessed the accident and also made Ex.A-1 complaint to the police, that on 20.02.2002 at about 7.45 p.m., himself and the deceased Rengasamy purchased some articles in Aathanakkottai bazaar and they were returning to their village in separate cycles. It is his further case that at the time when they were proceeding on the left side of the road, from north to south, the appellant transport corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1126, which was coming from the opposite direction i.e. from south to north, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased who was proceeding 30 feet ahead of him and caused the accident. According to him, the deceased Rengasamy died on the spot. According to him, the deceased Rengasamy died on the spot. It was he who lodged a complaint before Aathanakkottai Police Station regarding the accident. 6. Before the Tribunal, the driver of the transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. It is his claim that though he lodged a complaint in the Aathanakottai Police Station, the same was not accepted by police. However, on verification, it is found that R.W.1 went to the police station and he signed only in bail bond and not in the complaint as claimed by him. 7. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence of P.W.3, first information report Ex.A-1 and the evidence of R.W.1, preferred to accept the claim of P.W.3. We have also perused all the materials and we are in agreement with the said conclusion. 8. Coming to the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal, P.W.1, wife of the deceased, has stated that her husband deceased Rengasamy was getting an income of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing lime-kiln business. P.W.2, fifth claimant, namely one of the daughter of the deceased, also corroborated the statement made by P.W.1. Ex.A-6 is receipt for payment of licence fee for the year 1990-91 and 1992 in Pudukkottai Panchayat Union. The said receipt shows that the deceased Rangasamy had paid Rs.20/- as licence fee on 04.04.1991. In addition to the above, the claimants have also produced Ex.A-7 receipt for payment of professional tax paid by the deceased Rengasamy on 03.02.1993. 9. In the light of the said evidence, though P.W.1 has claimed Rs.6,000/- as the income of the deceased, the tribunal has concluded that the deceased would have earned atleast Rs.3,000/- by doing lime-kiln business at the time of accident and fixed the same as his income. There is no contra material to take a different view as that of the view taken by the Tribunal. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and by applying proper multiplier, namely 13, as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and after allowing deduction to the extent of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal had fixed Rs.3,12,000/- as total loss of income to the family. Apart from this, the Tribunal has also granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- each in favour of claimants towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to claimant No.1, being the wife of the deceased, towards loss of consortium. After adding Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the tribunal passed the award for a sum of Rs.3,94,000/- as total compensation. 10. Considering the oral and documentary evidence relating to the profession and income of the deceased and of the fact that the deceased had left a large family behind him, out of which four are unmarried, one being minor, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no valid ground for interference. 11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Connected CMP (MD) No.5342 of 2005 is also dismissed.