Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Decree and Judgment in MACTOP No.22 of 2006 dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Gobichettypalayam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 06.08.2001 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased Palanisamy was riding his TVS-50 moped along with the pillion rider from Gobi to Nambiyur Road from south to north direction. When the moped reached near Konnamadai Karupatti Society, the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-1314, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased as well as the pillion rider were thrown out from the vehicle and the deceased sustained injuries all over the body. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Gobichettypalayam, where the Doctor declared that the deceased was dead. The claimants are the father, mother, wife and minor son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleading, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation? b) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom? 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 Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% 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 Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. It is also submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. It is also submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. No witnesses examined and no documents marked on the side of the Transport Corporation. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Senniappan. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of Observation Mahazar. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P6 is the attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.P7 is the original copy of Legal Heir Certificate. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of Partition Deed. Ex.P9 is the Voters Identity Card. Ex.P10 is the Lease Agreement. After considering the 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 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income - 4,50,000/- Loss of consortium - 15,000/- Loss of love and affection - 5,000/- Funeral expenses - 5,000/-Total 4,75,000/- =========== P.W.1- Masiriammal, the wife of the deceased has given evidence that the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her husband. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of rough sketch, which also supports the case of the claimants. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of First Information Report. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, wherein it was stated that the driver of the bus has driven the vehicle with valid driving license. After considering the above materials and evidence, the Tribunal correctly 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 considering the above materials and evidence, the Tribunal correctly 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. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, has given evidence that her husband was an agriculturist and also taken lease of 6 acres of land from one Senniappan, P.W.2, and that therefore, the deceased was earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Ex.P10 is the Lease Agreement. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of Partition Deed. After taking into consideration the materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal determined the annual income of the deceased at Rs.45,000/-. From that amount, 1/3rd of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was taken as the deceaseds contribution to the family. The age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of accident. Hence the Tribunal adopted 15 multiplier and determined the loss of income at Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 15). The Tribunal has correctly estimated the annual income which is based on valid materials and evidence, and adopted the correct multiplier and determined the loss of income at Rs.4,50,000/-. Hence the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income at Rs.4,50,000/- is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration of the age of the widow, viz., 34 years, the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-each towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, which are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The findings of the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,75,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs. 6. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,75,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs. 6. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs.4,75,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.