Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Decree and Judgment made in MACT.OP No.1078 of 2005 dated 08.09.2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Villupuram. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 011. 2005, the deceased Anthuvan was riding his cycle on the Pondy-Villianoor Main Road at the extreme left side. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2126 belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, proceeding from west to east direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to hospital and at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased died in the hospital. The claimants are the wife, two sons and a daughter 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 has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,97,500/- 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 has 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 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 the respondents / claimants has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence 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.P3 were marked. Hence 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.P3 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Thangapandian 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 Charles. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.843/2005 of Pondicherry Traffic Police Station. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.P3 is the xerox copy of Post Mortem Certificate of the deceased. After considering these materials and evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,97,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 2,88,000/- Funeral expenses 2,000/-Loss of estate 2,500/- Loss of consortium 5,000/- Total... 2,97,500/- ============== P.W.2, who is the independent eye witness, deposed that the deceased was proceeding in the cycle on the left extreme of the road and that the bus came from west to east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which he sustained multiple injuries. P.W.2 also stated that he took the deceased in an auto and admitted in the Government Hospital. He further deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Ex.P1, F.I.R. also states that the deceased was proceeding on the left extreme of the road from east to west and the bus came from west to east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. So, the evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report which indicates that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. After considering these oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,97,500/- with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of petition. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of accident and he was doing agricultural work and also milk vending business. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.150/-per day from agriculture and Rs.8,000/-per month from milk vending business. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of accident and he was doing agricultural work and also milk vending business. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.150/-per day from agriculture and Rs.8,000/-per month from milk vending business. But no documentary evidence produced to substantiate the claim. On the basis of Ex.P3, Post Mortem Certificate, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 58 years. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned Rs.150/-per day and calculated the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.3,000/-that the deceased would have contributed to the family and arrived at the annual income at Rs.36,000/-. Thereafter, considering the age of the deceased which was 58 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal adopted 8 multiplier and determined the loss of income at Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 8). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly determined the daily, monthly as well as the annual income and adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income at Rs.2,88,000/- is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, which are reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, which was 54 years at the time of accident, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and hence the same is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is 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.2,97,500/- 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. 7. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,97,500/- 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. 7. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit Rs.2,97,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit.