Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.1999 in MCOP No.638/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The deceased K.R.Rukmani Thayar was travelling in the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN-07-A-3100 from north to south direction in the Old Mamallapuram Road in between Pyanoor Village and Pandithamedu Village, i.e., approximately 1.5 Kms from Pyanoor Village. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-31-N-0265, belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car in which the deceased was travelling and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu and on the same day, the deceased was shifted to the Apollo Hospital where she died. The driver of the car died on the spot and two other occupants have also sustained severe fractures. The claimant is the son of the deceased. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.12,65,000/-before the Tribunal. The appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Whether the accident was due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus? b) Whether the claimant is entitled to get the compensation? If so, what is the amount? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to Transport Corporation. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification and that the interest of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 4. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification and that the interest of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / claimant submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. It is therefore submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant himself. P.W.4 is one Ponnurangam, the Police Constable. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the occupants of the car in which the deceased was travelling, who have also sustained severe fractures. Ex.P1 is the Legal Heirship Certificate. Ex.P2 is the Medical Bills. Ex.P3 is the Report of death of Tamil Nadu Police. Ex.P4 is the Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P5 is the Income-tax Assessment Form. Ex.P6 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.P7 is the copy of Rough Sketch. Ex.P8 is the Accident Register. Ex.P9 is the Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P10 is the Photos (series). Ex.P11 is the negatives (series). R.W.1 is one Durairaj, conductor of the bus. R.W.2 is one Munusamy, driver of the bus. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income - 4,80,000/- Medical Expenses - 1,10,049/- Total 5,90,049/- =========== Rounded off to Rs.5,90,000/- The claimant is the only son of the deceased. The deceased was 57 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was a house wife, managing the business and the entire properties belonging to her and out of which, she was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was 57 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was a house wife, managing the business and the entire properties belonging to her and out of which, she was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. P.W.2 is the eye witness has spoken to the fact that while he was proceeding in the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN-07-A-3100 between Pondithamedu Village and Pyanoor Village in Old Mahabalipuram Road, the bus bearing Registration TN-31-N-0265 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and as a result of the accident, the car rolled down and the driver was thrown away from the car and other occupants, namely his mother-in-law, his wife and two children including himself have sustained grievous injuries. P.W.2 had made it clear in the cross examination that the accident was only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. P.W.3, being one among the occupants of the said Ambassador Car deposed that the driver of the bus has violated the traffic rules and came rashly and hit the car and as a result, the car driver died on the spot. The driver and conductor of the bus were also examined and they are R.W.2 and R.W.1. Both of them have given oral evidence that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Ambassador Car. R.W.2, in the cross examination, had stated that he was keeping left side of the road at the time of accident. But Ex.P7-Copy of rough sketch, clearly shows that the driver of the bus, R.W.2, was responsible for the accident. R.W.1 has conceded the fact that since he happened to be on the back side in the bus and was issuing tickets to the passengers, he has not actually seen the accident. Ex.P6 is the copy of F.I.R. which was lodged by the driver of the bus, R.W.2 and R.W.2 was charge sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhikundram. After taking into consideration all these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. After taking into consideration all these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. The claimant is the legal heir and is also the dependant of the deceased. It was also stated that the deceased was an Income-tax assessee and Ex.P5 has been marked, which clearly shows that for the assessment year 1995-96, a sum of Rs.3,545/- was paid by the deceased towards income tax, but Ex.P5 does not give any clue to the fact as to how much annual income derived from the properties owned by the deceased Rukmani Thayar. Taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned not less than Rs.7,500/-per month. From the said amount, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was taken as the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family. Accordingly, the annual income was determined at Rs.60,000/-. The age of the deceased was 57 years at the time of accident. After taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 8 and determined the loss of income to the family at Rs.4,80,000/-. The Tribunal has correctly determined the annual income and adopted the correct multiplier and the same are based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is confirmed. P.W.1 has given evidence that his mother was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, Chennai on 110. 1995 and after undergoing treatment till 011. 1995, died on 011. 1995 in the hospital itself. P.W.1 has also stated that he has spent a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards medical expenses on his mother. Ex.P2 is the medical bills. The Tribunal relied on these oral and documentary evidence and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,049/- towards medical expenses, which is based on valid materials and evidence and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% from the date of petition is very excessive and is not in accordance with law. In this case, the correct rate of interest is 9% and therefore, the interest rate alone is modified to 9% as against 12% fixed by the Tribunal. 6. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% from the date of petition is very excessive and is not in accordance with law. In this case, the correct rate of interest is 9% and therefore, the interest rate alone is modified to 9% as against 12% fixed by the Tribunal. 6. Therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,90,000/- is confirmed and the interest rate alone is modified to 9% p.a. from the date of petition as against 12% awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above modification. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6040 of 2000 is closed. No costs.