Judgment :- (Prayer: Appeals against the award dated 23.11.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.2341 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. The above appeals are directed against the award dated 23.11.2001 in M.C.O.P.No.2341 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. 2. While C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 is filed by the claimants, C.M.A.No.1796 of 2002 has been filed by the Transport Corporation. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 are referred to as claimants and the appellant in C.M.A.No.1796 of 2002 is referred to as Transport Corporation. 3. The claimants, who are appellants in C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 made a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2341 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty Lakhs only) with interest, for the death of husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 & 3, aged about 42 years, who was earning a sum of Rs.9,234/-p.m. as an Assistant Director in Regional Labour Institute, in a road accident that took place on 12.7.1997 near Lingi Chetty Street, Chennai, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN.01 N 2378 belonging to the Transport Corporation. 4. Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased Vikas Nandankar was earning Rs.12,500/- per month as an Assistant Director in Regional Labour Institute, the Tribunal, taking into consideration Ex.P.3, salary Certificate of the deceased, fixed his earnings at Rs.10,000/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd i.e. a sum of Rs.3,400/- towards his personal expenses, arrived the contribution to the family at Rs.6,600/- p.m. and adopting a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.11,88,000/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, totalling a sum of Rs.12,18,000/- as compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 would contend that though the Tribunal had taken into account the last drawn salary as Rs.9,234/- it erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income at Rs.14,100/-taking into account his continuity in service, had he been alive. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 would contend that though the Tribunal had taken into account the last drawn salary as Rs.9,234/- it erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income at Rs.14,100/-taking into account his continuity in service, had he been alive. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- on all the three heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses, which is not correct. 6. Learned counsel for the Transport Corporation/ respondent in C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 submitted that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also and therefore, the compensation, awarded should have been apportioned. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration Ex.R3, the report given by the Transport Corporation Accident Investigator, to the effect that there was no damage to the front side of the bus and also Ex.R4, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, with regard to the scooter which shows that the scooter got damaged on the front bumper making it clear that only the scooterist is responsible for the accident. 7. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and given our careful consideration to the submissions of the counsel on either side. 8. It is trite that the precept of 'negligence' means the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The test of negligence lies in default to exercise the ordinary care and caution which is expected of a prudent man in the circumstances of a given case. The duty to exercise such care and caution including reasonable use of his faculties of sight and intelligence to observe and appreciate danger or threatened danger of injury is undoubtedly on the driver of an automobile. If he fails to do so and such failure is the proximate cause of the injury or death, he is guilty of negligence. In other words, the test is whether the driver could, by exercising normal diligence and caution, avert the accident. If he fails to do so and such failure is the proximate cause of the injury or death, he is guilty of negligence. In other words, the test is whether the driver could, by exercising normal diligence and caution, avert the accident. Negligence is the omission to do which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The negligence is not a question of evidence; it is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which could be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon the facts in each case [vide M.N.Rajan and others V. Konnali Khalid Haji and another reported in 2004 ACJ 484 ]. 9. In the instant case, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident, as the Transport Corporation has not proved, either by examining the driver or the conductor of the bus, that only the scooterist is responsible for the accident. Hence, the plea of contributory negligence urged by the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation is rejected. 10.1. The other point urged by the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation is that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration Ex.R3, the report given by the Transport Corporation Accident Investigator, to the effect that there was no damage to the front side of the bus and Ex.R4, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, given in respect of the scooter to the effect that the scooter got damaged on the front bumper, which shows that only the scooterist is responsible for the accident, 10.2. When a similar question arose for consideration, this Court in C.M.A.No.614 of 1991, by judgment dated 27.3.2001, held as follows: "13. The bus dashed against the motorcycle and the motorcylist was run over by the bus and only due to the impact of the bus with the motorcycle, such severe damages have been caused to the motor-cycle. When a similar question arose for consideration, this Court in C.M.A.No.614 of 1991, by judgment dated 27.3.2001, held as follows: "13. The bus dashed against the motorcycle and the motorcylist was run over by the bus and only due to the impact of the bus with the motorcycle, such severe damages have been caused to the motor-cycle. By dashing of heavy vehicle like bus against the motorcycle only the motorcycle will be damaged much. It cannot be expected that the bus, such a heavy vehicle would have been damaged. Due to dashing of the heavy vehicle, the bus, the motorcycle has been smashed and it has been completely damaged and the motorcyclist fell down and the motorcycle and the motorcyclist were run over by the bus and under such circumstances, there is no possibility at all for causing any damage to the bus and only the motorcycle would have been damaged. So, we find no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel, on this aspect." 10.3. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the case, we hold that merely because the scooter got damaged on its front bumper, it cannot be stated that the scooterist was responsible for the accident and the submission of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation is liable to be rejected. 11. Since no other ground is urged by the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, we do not see any reason to decrease the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 12. On the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants regarding fixation of monthly income of the deceased, we find that the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, oral and documentary, arrived at a finding that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.9,234/- at the time of accident and considering his continuity of service, had he been alive, fixed his salary at Rs.10,000/- per month and we are not inclined to disturb the finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal. 13. On the other hand, it could be seen from the award of the Tribunal that only a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded on all three heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, which, in our considered opinion, is inadequate. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the amount awarded on the heads referred to above. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the amount awarded on the heads referred to above. Accordingly, taking into consideration all relevant facts, we think it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, the wife of the deceased, and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the claimants 2 and 3, being minor children towards loss of love and affection, and also a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. In fine, C.M.A.No.1254 of 2002 filed by the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.2341 of 1997 is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,18,000/- to Rs.12,50,000/-. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Consequently, C.M.A.No.1796 of 2002 filed by the Transport Corporation is dismissed. Connected C.M.Ps are also dismissed.