Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the award of compensation passed by the learned Tribunal,Krishnagiri, in MACTOP.No.844 of 2000 dated 08.01.2002 in awarding a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate cost, against the claim of Rs.12 lakhs. The appellant is the respondent/ Transport Corporation. 2. On 24.05.2000 at about 05.00 hours when the deceased Viswanathan along with his wife was travelling from Salem to Madurai in the respondent Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-57-No-924, and when the bus was nearing the Chettipalayam junction, the driver of the bus drove the bus carelessly and applied brake suddenly. Due to this unexpected event, the deceased Viswanathan fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The respondents/petitioners claimed Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The appellant/Transport Corporation denied the averments of the claimants and stated in the counter that the driver was driving the bus with all cautiousness following the rules and it was the deceased who without even informing the conductor and the driver of the bus, tried to get down from the bus to attend the natures call and lost his balance; fell down and died on the spot and that the deceased alone was responsible for the said accident. The respondent Corporation had stated that the accident had occurred only due to the carelessness of the deceased and not due to the driver of the bus. 4. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent and abrupt stoppage of the vehicle belonging to respondent Transport Corporation? And 2. What should be the quantum of compensation if any awardable to the claimants?" 5. On the side of the claimants, only one witness was examined and four documents were marked and on the side of the respondent Corporation, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident and awarded Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation, the details are as under: Loss of Income - Rs.5,28,000/- Loss of Consortium - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of Love & Affection - Rs. 10,000/- Funeral Expenses - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of Love & Affection - Rs. 10,000/- Funeral Expenses - Rs. 2,000/- Total - Rs.5,50,000/- 6. The learned Tribunal had after full fledged enquiry had come to a conclusion that the claimants of the deceased person are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- against the claim of Rs.12 lakhs. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent Transport Corporation would submit in his argument that the deceased Viswanathan had invited the accident while he was travelling in the bus belonging to the respondent by attempting to get down from the bus without informing the conductor and driver for answering the urinal call and he himself had contributed the negligence and therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. He would further submit in his argument that the quantum of compensation as fixed by the learned Tribunal was against the proportions and the multiplier adopted was also high and the quantum of compensation should also be reduced in such a way to suit the norms of law. Therefore, he had prayed for the revision of liability and the quantum of compensation as reached by the learned Tribunal and the appeal may be allowed. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit in his argument that the Lower court is correct in coming to the conclusion of fixing the liability of payment against the Transport Corporation since it is the duty of the driver and the conductor to look after the safety of the passengers who travel in their bus. But the driver of the bus had suddenly stopped the bus without hearing the deceased Viswanathan and thereby caused his fall from the bus and he died on the spot and therefore, the appellant/respondent Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation for the tortious liability of its employee. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent driver was alone prosecuted for the accident and the things happened during the course of accident would speak volume of truth and fasten the liability on the respondent only. He would also submit that the lower court had assessed the compensation on the basis of documentary evidence supported by the oral evidence adduced by the claimant and had correctly come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- against the claim of Rs.12 lakhs to the claimants. He would also submit that the lower court had assessed the compensation on the basis of documentary evidence supported by the oral evidence adduced by the claimant and had correctly come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- against the claim of Rs.12 lakhs to the claimants. Therefore, he would submit that the case of the appellant Transport Corporation may not be relied upon and the appeal be dismissed. 9. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced on either side and the evidence adduced before the lower court, we could see, that admittedly the accident had happened on 25. 2000 when the deceased Viswanathan was travelling in the respondent Bus from salem to Madurai. The wife of the deceased Viswanathan was also travelling along with him and due to the sudden brake applied by the driver, the said Viswanathan had fallen from his seat and sustained injuries and died on the spot. The First Information Report was produced as Ex.P.1 which was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. The respondent did not examine either the driver or the conductor to prove its case or to contradict the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, we could safely come to a conclusion that the accident had happened only at the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent and not due to any negligence on the part of the deceased Viswanathan. 10. Nextly, when we come to the calculation of compensation, we have seen that the deceased Viswanathan was working as a Junior Bailiff in the Subordinate Court and was earning a sum of Rs.5,667/-at the time of accident. He was aged 50 years and he has got ten years of remaining service. The salary certificate produced as Ex.P.3 had proved the same. The learned Tribunal had reduced 1/3rd of the salary for the maintenance of the deceased person and fixed the contribution to his family at Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, it has calculated Rs.48,000/-per annum and used the multiplier at 11 and had arrived at a conclusion of Rs.5,28,000/-. The multiplier placed at 11 is perfectly done in accordance with Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, there is no impediment to upheld the calculation made by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, it has calculated Rs.48,000/-per annum and used the multiplier at 11 and had arrived at a conclusion of Rs.5,28,000/-. The multiplier placed at 11 is perfectly done in accordance with Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, there is no impediment to upheld the calculation made by the learned Tribunal. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal had also calculated the compensation for loss of love and affection and for future life of the claimants at Rs.10,000/- for claimants 2 to 4 and for the loss of consortium at Rs.10,000/-for the first claimant. The funeral expenses was also awarded at Rs.2,000/- and a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/-was awarded to the claimants against the claim of Rs.12 lakhs made by the claimants. The claimants have not preferred any cross-objection in this appeal. The calculation as made out by the learned Tribunal is quite just and reasonable and therefore, there is no reason for revising or reducing the compensation payable to the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is justifiable and therefore, confirmed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Appellant/Transport Corporation is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost.