Judgment :- This appeal is preferred by the Transport Corporation against the award dated 24.01.2007 made in MACTOP No.218 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamalle. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 112. 2005 at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased was walking on the road for getting into Chennai bus at Mayiladuthurai Bus Stand. At that time, a bus belonging to the appellant-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN-32-N-1906 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed from West to East and dashed against the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Annamalai University College Hospital and then admitted to MIOT Hospital, Manapakkam, Chennai, and inspite of treatment, he died on 22. 2005. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.25,10,000/-as compensation but restricted their claim to Rs.15.03,000/-. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1.Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver or not? 2.What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,83,879/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by that order, the Transport corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation disputed only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 10 instead of 8. He further submitted that the amount awarded by 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 submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation RW1 was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW2 is one Babu, who is an eye witness to the accident. PW3 is the Manager of the Arch Line Training Centre. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex.P3 is the Charge sheet. Exs.P4 and Ex.P5 (series) are the Medical Bills. Ex.P6 is the Legal heirship certificate. Ex.P7 is the Mark Sheet issued by the Madras University. Ex.P8 is also Mark Sheet. Exs.P9 and P10 are the salary certificates. Ex.P11 is the attendance register. RW1 is the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation. After considering the 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 and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,83,879/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Medical Expenses - Rs. 1,18,879/- Loss of income - Rs. 5,60,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs. 6,83,879/- ============= At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and the same was proved from Ex.P8 Mark sheet, wherein the date of the birth of the deceased was mentioned as 04.03.1976. He was the Inspector in Archline Training Centre, Mahabalipuram Road, Kelambakkam. PW1 has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-p.m. PW.3 is the Manager of the Archline Training Centre and he deposed that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.9800/-. Exs.P9 and P10 are the salary certificates. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceaseds father was 59 and the mother was 52. PW1 has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-p.m. PW.3 is the Manager of the Archline Training Centre and he deposed that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.9800/-. Exs.P9 and P10 are the salary certificates. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceaseds father was 59 and the mother was 52. After taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and the documents, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.7,000/-as the monthly salary of the deceased and calculated the annual income at Rs.84,000/-(Rs.7,000/-x 12). After deducting 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.28,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at an amount of Rs.56,000/-as the deceaseds contribution to the family. The annual income determined by the Tribunal is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 10 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs.5,60,000/-(Rs.56,000/- x 10). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation has vehemently contended that though the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly as well as annual income of the deceased, it ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 10. It should have adopted the multiplier of 9 on the basis of the age of the mother viz., 52 years. Hence it would be appropriate and reasonable to adopt the multiplier of 9. If 9 multiplier is adopted, the loss of income works out to (Rs.56,000/- x 9) Rs.5,04,000/-. Accordingly, the loss of income is modified to Rs.5,04,000/-as against the amount of Rs.6,83,879/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,879/- towards medical expenses, which is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, which is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income : Rs.5,04,000/- Medical Expenses : Rs.1,18,879/- Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.6,27,879/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.6,27,879/-as against the compensation of Rs.6,83,879/-awarded by the Tribunal. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is at 7.5%, which is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 6. It is stated that the appellant-Transport Corporation has already deposited the entire award amount as per the order dated 010. 2007. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is at 7.5%, which is also very reasonable and the same is confirmed. 6. It is stated that the appellant-Transport Corporation has already deposited the entire award amount as per the order dated 010. 2007. In these circumstances, the respondents-claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, from the deposit. It is needless to say that the appellant-Transport Corporation is also entitled to withdraw the balance amount available in the deposit, on making proper application. 7. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.