Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 011. 2002 passed in M.C.O.P.No.521 of 1999, granting compensation of Rs.5,14,600/-. 2. Aggrieved by the award so rendered, the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai-2 as appellant, has impugned the same in the present appeal. 3. The respondents, being the wife, children and mother of the deceased S.Veerappan have preferred claim petition M.C.O.P.No.521 of 1999, claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation. 4. The material facts leading to the present appeal are set out in brief:- The deceased S.Veerappan, on 09.07.1998 at about 20.00 hours was crossing GST Road, opposite to Devi Karumariamman Koil from west to east, at the pedestrian crossing, the MTC Bus TN-23-N-0660 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering the public safety came at a dangerous speed from south to north dashed against the deceased and thus caused the fatal accident. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the respondent being a Corporation is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation claimed with interest and costs from the date of the accident. The appellant/respondent took a stand in the counter that on 09.07.1998, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-0660, Route No.PP 66 started the trip at Vandalur Zoological Park and proceeded towards its destination Poonamallee and when the bus was proceeding on the GST Road opposite to Devi Karumariamman Koil, Chrompet, the deceased without observing the traffic on the road, suddenly crossed the road from left side and hit the bus and thus, the accident took place and therefore, the accident had occurred due to the ignorant and reckless act of the deceased and as such, the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident and resultantly, the appellant/ respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, much less the compensation claimed in the petition. Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents/ petitioners witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked and on the side of appellant/ respondent witness R.W.1 was examined and no exhibits were marked. Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents/ petitioners witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked and on the side of appellant/ respondent witness R.W.1 was examined and no exhibits were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the appellant/respondent driver, passed an award of Rs.5,14,600/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 22.07.1998 till date of payment. Questioning the same, the Transport Corporation has projected the present appeal. 5. In order to prove negligence, P.W.2-Renganathan, brother of deceased Veerappan was examined. According to him, on 09.07.1998 at 8.00 p.m. in GST Road on the western side, he was standing near the entrance of Devi Karumariamman Koil and at that time, his brother while crossing the 20 feet distance road from west to east, the bus TN-23-N-0660 coming from south to north dashed against him and as a result thereof, his brother sustained injuries on the head and that his brother expired on that day of accident and that he has given the complaint and that the accident took place because of the negligence of the bus driver. The certified copy of FIR has been marked as Ex.P.3. As against the evidence of P.W.2-Renganathan, the Conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. In his evidence, R.W.1 has deposed that the bus TN-23-N-0660, Route No.PP 66 was proceeding to Poonamallee in the Vandalur Zoological Park Road and when the bus came to Chrompet Via Poonamallee, it suddenly stopped and he got down from the bus and saw one person was injured and that person was lying after getting injured on the front left tire and he heard that the said person came and fell across. 6. It is the specific evidence of R.W.1-Pandian (Conductor) in the cross examination that he has not seen the said individual when he came crossing. Admittedly, the driver of the bus S.Bharathi was not examined before the Tribunal. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.469 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. As seen from Ex.P.5, the driver of the bus was charged in respect of offences under Section 279 and 304 (A) of I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 07.08.2000 passed in C.C.No.469 of 1998. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.469 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. As seen from Ex.P.5, the driver of the bus was charged in respect of offences under Section 279 and 304 (A) of I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 07.08.2000 passed in C.C.No.469 of 1998. It transpires from Ex.P.6-Certified Copy of Judgment that the driver of the bus an accused, was found guilty under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the Legal Heirship Certificate dated 22.06.1999. Ex.P.2 is the Postmortem Certificate in respect of the deceased Veerappan. Ex.P.4 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P.5 is the Charge Sheet. In Ex.P.3-Certified Copy of FIR, it is clearly stated that the bus belonging to Tamil Nadu Government MTC Route No.66, registration No. TN-23-N-0660 came in high speed and dashed against his brother and dragged him to a distance of approximately 20 (twenty feet) and serious injury was sustained on the head and therefore, the principle of res ipsa loquitur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. From the testimony of P.W.2-Renganathan and on consideration of materials on record, it is candidly clear that the driver of the appellant Corporation, who drove the bus, was negligent and caused the accident and therefore, this Court is in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the negligence act of the driver and that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for causing the accident. 7. In regard to the quantum, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1-Vijaya, wife of the deceased Veerappan, that her husband was employed as Painting Contractor and at the time of his death, he was 29 years old and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. The respondents 2 to 4 are the minor children of the deceased Veerappan. The 5th respondent is the mother-in-law of first respondent. 8. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier as 17. It has fixed the notional income as Rs.3,600/- per month. For one third deduction, it has taken into account a sum of Rs.1,200/-. The monthly dependency is arrived at Rs.2,400/-and the annual loss of income has been fixed at Rs.28,800/-. By adopting the multiplier 17, a sum of Rs.4,89,600/- has been arrived at by the Tribunal. It has fixed the notional income as Rs.3,600/- per month. For one third deduction, it has taken into account a sum of Rs.1,200/-. The monthly dependency is arrived at Rs.2,400/-and the annual loss of income has been fixed at Rs.28,800/-. By adopting the multiplier 17, a sum of Rs.4,89,600/- has been arrived at by the Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid sum of Rs.4,89,600/-, for loss of consortium a sum of Rs.10,000/-, for loss of love and affection a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for funeral expenses a sum of Rs.5,000/- were awarded and total compensation of Rs.5,14,600/-(Rupees Five lakhs fourteen thousand and six hundred only) was awarded to the respondents/petitioners. 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the income of the deceased Veerappan has not been proved with proper documents and the Tribunal committed an error in awarding exorbitant amount of Rs.5,14,600/-towards compensation and therefore, the award of the Tribunal requires reconsideration in the hands of this Court and consequently, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 10. In the claim petition, the deceased Veerappans age is mentioned as 29. P.W.1-wife of the deceased, in her evidence has also deposed that her husbands age at the time of his death was 29. It is significant to point out that in Ex.P.2-Postmortem Certificate, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years. To know about the exact age of deceased Veerappan at the time of his death, no birth certificate has been marked in the case. In its absence, a reliance can be placed on the Ex.P.2-Postmortem Certificate and accordingly, this Court fixes the age of the deceased Veerappan at the time of his death as 30. 11. In Radhey Shyam Agarwal and Another V. Gayatri Devi and others, 1998 ACJ 1177 , where the deceased was aged 30 years, a business man earning Rs.3,250/- per month and claimants were widow and five minor children, Appellate Court has adopted the multiplier as 17. 12. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Sakhi Bai and Others, 1998 ACJ Page 505, where a deceased was aged 30 years, the dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and multiplier of 17 was allowed. 13. 12. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Sakhi Bai and Others, 1998 ACJ Page 505, where a deceased was aged 30 years, the dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and multiplier of 17 was allowed. 13. Considering the fact that the deceased Veerappan during his life time was maintaining his wife, children and mother, being the respondents/petitioners and inasmuch as he was employed as Painting Contractor, there is no error on the part of the Tribunal in fixing his notional income at Rs.3,600/-per month. The Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs.1,200/- per month for the personal expenses of the deceased Veerappan. The monthly dependency of Rs.2,400/-arrived at by the Tribunal suffers no infirmity or illegality in the considered opinion of this Court. It is pertinent to point out that though a plea was taken in the counter by the appellant Corporation that the deceased without observing the traffic on the road suddenly crossed the road etc. However, the same has not been substantiated by the appellant to the satisfaction of this Court and resultantly, the said plea of contributory negligence is not accepted. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum Rs.5,14,600/-to the respondents/petitioners as compensation for the death of deceased Veerappan along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 22.07.1998 till date of payment. The first respondent/petitioner has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-and respondents 2 to 4/petitioners have been awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-each. The 5th respondent/5th petitioner has been awarded a sum of Rs.64,600/- etc. 15. It is relevant to mention that the interest is awarded by the Tribunal not as damages but the same is granted only for being let out of money which ought to have been paid to the claimants. To put it differently, interest takes care of the period between the date of claim and the date of final payment. As a matter of fact, in Malliga V. S.K.Rajendran 2005 ACJ 1218 (Mad), the interest is allowed at 9% per annum from the date of application. 16. To put it differently, interest takes care of the period between the date of claim and the date of final payment. As a matter of fact, in Malliga V. S.K.Rajendran 2005 ACJ 1218 (Mad), the interest is allowed at 9% per annum from the date of application. 16. From the foregoing discussions and in the light of oral and documentary evidence available on record and viewing it from any angle, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be either unreasonable or exorbitant and on the other hand, the award passed by the Tribunal is reasonable and there is no scope for interference in the appeal. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, viz., Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.521 of 1999 dated 011. 2002 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this appeal. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.