Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the award and decreetal order made in MACTOP No.444 of 2004 dated 06.04.2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam). 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 24.06.2004 at about 19.30 hours, the deceased Arumugham was riding his bicycle from Marakkanam to Kandhadu Village at the extreme left side of the Marakkanam-Tindivanam Main Road. When the deceased was nearing Marakkanam Mettu Street, the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-1370, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction at high speed and dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to the Government General Hospital, Pondicherry for treatment and he died on the same day, i.e., 24.06.2004. The claimants are the wife, 2 minor sons, daughter and mother 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 only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,87,000/-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. 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 the respondents / claimants has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 5. 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.P4 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Rajadurai was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Nagarajan. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.P4 is the copy of charge sheet. After considering the materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,87,000/- with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 3,60,000/- Funeral expenses 2,000/- Loss of love and affection 25,000/- Total... 3,87,000/- ============== P.W.2 is an eye witness, who had seen the occurrence. He had seen the accident and given evidence that the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and he only informed the accident to the relative of the deceased. Ex.P2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, which also states that the said bus does not suffer from any mechanical defect. After considering 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 bus driver belonging to the Transport Corporation. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-per month from Ice Candy business and agriculture. But no oral or documentary evidence produced to substantiate the claim. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-per month from Ice Candy business and agriculture. But no oral or documentary evidence produced to substantiate the claim. Hence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased would have earned Rs.100/-per day and accordingly calculated the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-and the annual income at Rs.36,000/-. From that amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining amount of Rs.24,000/-was taken as the deceaseds contribution to the family. The age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. Hence the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and computed the loss of income at Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-). The Tribunal has correctly estimated the monthly as well as annual income and adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income at Rs.3,60,000/- is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses, which is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the 5 claimants. Taking into consideration the age of the claimants and also the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.25,000/-towards loss of love and affection 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. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,87,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed. No costs. 7. It is submitted that the Transport Corporation has deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Respondents 2 to 4 were aged 16 years, 13 years and 11 years old at the time of accident. The date of accident was 24.06.2004 and now, three years have passed after the accident. Hence the second respondent has now attained majority. 7. It is submitted that the Transport Corporation has deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Respondents 2 to 4 were aged 16 years, 13 years and 11 years old at the time of accident. The date of accident was 24.06.2004 and now, three years have passed after the accident. Hence the second respondent has now attained majority. Therefore, respondents 1, 2 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share. The shares of the minors / respondents 3 and 4, shall be invested in any nationalised bank proximate to the place of the resident of the minors guardian, the first respondent, for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minors attain majority. The guardian of the minors, the first respondent, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months.