Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2006 made in MACT.OP No.1177 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Court, Salem. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- On 05.05.2003, the deceased Mann @ Arumugam was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-0390 belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. The bus stopped at a bus stand opposite to Jayaram Engineering Company at G.S.T.Road, Achirapakkam at about 8.00 a.m. When the deceased was getting down from the bus, the driver suddenly proceeded the bus in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and regulations. Due to the sudden movement of the bus, the deceased fell down from the bus and the rear wheel of the bus ran over on the right thigh of the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot. The claimants are the wife and the minor son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Whether the accident 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 to receive any compensation or not? 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.3,15,000/-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 appellant / Transport Corporation 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 Tribunal had awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, 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 Tribunal had awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation, 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 submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion 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.P8 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is one Selvaraj. R.W.1 is one Shanmugam and R.W.2 is one Dhanasekaran. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of Post Mortem Report of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the Legal Heir Certificate. Ex.P6 is the voters identity card of the deceased. After considering the above materials and evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 2,68,800/- Loss of consortium 25,000/- Loss of love and affection 15,000/- Funeral expenses 5,000/- Transport expenses 1,000/- Total... 3,14,800/- ============== (Rounded off to Rs.3,15,000/-) 6. P.W.2 is one Selvaraj. He has given evidence that on 05.05.2003, the said bus stopped at the bus stop near Achirupakkam Police Station and when the deceased was getting down from the bus, the driver suddenly proceeded the bus in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the sudden movement of the bus, the deceased fell down from the bus and the rear wheel of the bus ran over on the right thigh of the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot. The driver of the bus was charge-sheeted and F.I.R. was filed which is Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the Post Mortem Report. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of charge sheet. The driver of the bus was charge-sheeted and F.I.R. was filed which is Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the Post Mortem Report. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of charge sheet. R.W.1 is the driver of the bus and R.W.2 is the conductor of the bus. 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 bus driver. 7. The deceased was a labourer working for laying down the pipes on the road. It was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- to Rs.350/-per day. But no documentary evidence has been produced in support of the same. Hence the Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned Rs.2,000/-per month. From that amount, the Tribunal deducted Rs.600/- (Rs.570/-towards the deceaseds contribution to the family and Rs.30/- towards his personal expenses) and arrived Rs.1,400/-as the monthly loss of income to the family of the deceased and calculated the annual loss of income at Rs.16,800/-. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased which was 40 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and determined the total loss of income at Rs.2,68,800/- (Rs.16,800/-x 16). The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly and annual income and also adopted the correct multiplier. Hence the loss of income awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,68,800/- is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards loss of consortium. After taking into consideration the age of the widow, viz. 32 years , I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of love and affection. After taking into consideration the widow and the minor son, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses, which are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses, which are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The interest rate awarded 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,15,000/- 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. 9. It is stated that the Transport Corporation has deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. The age of the second respondent was 16 years at the time of accident, i.e., on 05.05.2003. Now 4 years have passed after the accident. Hence the second respondent has now attained majority. Hence the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount from the deposit.