Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Decree and Judgment made in MACT.OP No.5384 of 2005 dated 011. 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 13.08.2005 at about 8.45 hours, the deceased Yobudoss was travelling as a pillion rider of a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-21-P-0437 at the left side of the GST Road, Chengalpattu, near Periyar Maaligai from south to north direction. At that time, a bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0466, proceeding from Marakkanam to Chennai, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules, hit on the behind of the motorcycle. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of 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.6,21,000/- 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. 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. 4. 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 Rajendran was examined as R.W.1, who is the conductor of the bus and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Duraisamy, an independent witness. P.W.3 is one Victor Jesudass. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P3 is the Death Certificate. Ex.P4 is the Legal Heirship Certificate. Ex.P5 is the Driving Licence of the deceased (original). Ex.P6 is the Typewriting Certificate. Ex.P7 is the xerox copy of certificate of registration. Ex.P8 is the copy of sales tax receipt. Ex.P9 is the Salary Certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.6,21,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 5,76,000/- Loss of love and affection 20,000/- Loss of Estate 20,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Total... 6,21,000/- ============== R.W.1 is the Conductor of the bus. Admittedly, he has not seen the accident. P.W.2, who is an independent witness, had clearly stated that the bus driver was negligent in knocking down the motorcycle from behind. Ex.P1-F.I.R, clearly prove that it is the bus driver who was negligent in driving the vehicle, hitting against the motorcycle which was going ahead of the bus. Also, the driver who drove the bus on the date of accident was removed from service after the accident, which clearly proves the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. After taking into consideration of these 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. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and they have lost their only son. The age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of accident. Ex.P5 is the Driving Licence of the deceased (original), which indicates the date of birth of the deceased as 21.09.1985. The deceased was working as a driver in a private hospital by name Joy Land at Chengalpattu. The age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of accident. Ex.P5 is the Driving Licence of the deceased (original), which indicates the date of birth of the deceased as 21.09.1985. The deceased was working as a driver in a private hospital by name Joy Land at Chengalpattu. The owner of the hotel was examined as P.W.3 and his evidence reveals that he was running the hotel for 5 years in Chengalpattu and the deceased was working as a car driver in his hotel for 8 months prior to his death and that he was giving Rs.200/- per day and a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. To prove that P.W.3 was running the hotel in Chengalpattu under the name and style of Joy Land, documents Ex.P7-Copy of Registration Certificate and Ex.P8-Receipt issued by Commercial Tax Department were produced. Ex.P9 is the Salary Certificate issued by P.W.3. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is seen that the deceased had joined service as a driver only 8 months prior to his death. After taking into consideration of the above evidence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance amount of Rs.4,000/- was taken as monthly income that the deceased would have contributed to the family. Thereafter the Tribunal calculated the annual income at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12). The age of the mother of the deceased was 43 years at the time of accident. Taking note of the age of the mother of the deceased and also other evidence, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 12 and determined the loss of income at Rs.5,76,000/- (Rs.48,000/-x 12). The Tribunal has correctly estimated the monthly as well as annual income and adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the loss of income amounting Rs.5,76,000/-is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The deceased was the only son for his parents. Taking into consideration of the same, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. Taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount awarded towards loss of estate is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. Taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount awarded towards loss of estate is 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. 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. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,21,000/- 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.2 of 2007 is closed. No costs. 6. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs.6,21,000/-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.