Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Decree and Judgment made in MACT.OP No.562 of 2005 dated 12. 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Ordinate Court), Gobichettipalayam. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 27.01.2005 at about 5.45 p.m., the deceased Kamaraj @ Kandasamy was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-1379 from Kunnathur to Thiruvaimudaliyur. The driver stopped the bus at Thiruvaimudaliyur Bus Stop. Some passengers were getting down from the bus. When the deceased was about to get down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner without the signal of the conductor of the bus. Due to the sudden movement of the bus, the deceased has lost his grip and balance and he was thrown away on the road and sustained injuries on his head, face, chest, legs, hands, left shoulder and all over the body. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam and first aid treatment was given. Due to severe head injury, he was referred to Government Hospital, Erode and he was admitted as an in-patient, where he died on 29.01.2005. The claimants are the wife, two daughters, son and father of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.10,50,000/-, but restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-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 or not? 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.4,83,000/- 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. 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. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 / claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Karuppusamy was examined as R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Kuppuswamy, an independent eye witness. P.W.3 is one Palaniswamy. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the copy of rough sketch. Ex.P5 is the Death Certificate. Ex.P6 is the Legal Heir Certificate. Ex.P7 is the Driving Licence. Ex.P8 is the copy of Family Card. Ex.P9 is the copy of Driving Licence. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,83,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 4,53,000/- Loss of consortium 15,000/-Loss of love and affection 10,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Total...4,83,000/- ============== P.W.2, Kuppuswamy is an independent eye witness. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 4,53,000/- Loss of consortium 15,000/-Loss of love and affection 10,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Total...4,83,000/- ============== P.W.2, Kuppuswamy is an independent eye witness. In his evidence he stated that on 27.01.2005 he also was travelling in the same bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-1379 belonging to the Transport Corporation and that the driver of the bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and stopped the bus at about 5.45 p.m. in the Thiruvaimudaliyur bus stop and when the deceased was about to get down from the bus, the driver suddenly moved the bus without the signal of the conductor and due to the same, the deceased was thrown out on the road. He also stated that he admitted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam along with some others. The Kunnathur Police also registered a case in Crime No.21/2006 against the driver of the bus Karuppusamy under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. and prosecuted against him for the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-1379 and causing the accident. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the copy of rough sketch. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. 6. Counsel appearing on both the sides submitted that there is an error in computation and the correct award amount should be Rs.4,86,000/- instead of Rs.4,83,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. .7. The claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a driver earning Rs.5,000/-per month and he was also doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.1,000/-per month, totalling to Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased also has driving licence for driving heavy vehicles, Ex.P7. P.W.3 is one Palaniswamy. P.W.3 has given evidence that the deceased was working as a lorry driver and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. But there is no evidence to show that the deceased was deriving agricultural income of Rs.1,000/-. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,800/- and determined the annual income at Rs.45,600/-(Rs.3,800/- x 12). But there is no evidence to show that the deceased was deriving agricultural income of Rs.1,000/-. After taking into consideration of the above, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,800/- and determined the annual income at Rs.45,600/-(Rs.3,800/- x 12). After deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.30,200/-. The age of the deceased was 44 years at the time of accident on the basis of entry in the Driving Licence, which is Ex.P7. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at Rs.4,53,000/-as the loss of income. The Tribunal correctly arrived the annual income at Rs.45,600/-, but after deducting 1/3rd of the amount, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.30,200/- which is an error. Instead of stating Rs.30,400/-, the Tribunal has stated Rs.30,200/- and both the counsel also agreed that there is an error in computation and the same should be Rs.30,400/-. After adopting the multiplier of 15, the loss of income should be Rs.4,56,000/- instead of Rs.4,53,000/-stated by the Tribunal. There is no dispute regarding the same. The Tribunal has correctly estimated the monthly as well as annual income and adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the loss of income amounting Rs.4,56,000/- is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium. The age of the widow was 38 years at the time of accident. Taking into consideration of the same, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the widow, two daughters, son and the father of the deceased, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is just, fair and reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, which is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. Hence the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,86,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 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. .8. Hence the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,86,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. 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. .8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs. 9. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs.4,86,000/-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. On making such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount.