Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the claimants as appellants as against the award dated 14.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal namely the Sub Judge, Poonamallee in M.C.O.P.No.629 of 1993, granting a total compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. 2. The appellants/claimants being the wife, sons and mother have filed a claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Irudayaraj involved in a motor accident. 3. The short facts of the claim are as below:- On 18.01.1993 at about 04.40 p.m., while the deceased Irudayaraj was travelling in his motor cycle TN-21 V 0712 in Thirumazhisai Road, M.G.R. Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TCB 3433 was driven in rashly and negligently by its driver in a manner endangering the public safety came at a dangerous speed dashed against the deceased and caused the fatal accident. The respondent being the owner of the vehicle is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, with cost and interest from the date of accident. 4. In the counter filed by the Transport/Corporation, it is inter alia averred that on 18.01.1993, the bus TCB 3433 belonging to the respondent/Corporation was proceeding from Poonamallee to Thiruvallur in town bus route No.T17 and when the bus was nearing Thirumazhisai bus stop the deceased who was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed from Thiruvallur to Madras along with a pillion rider Fathima and that the motor cycle caught in the sand kept on the road side and the motor cycle slipped and the deceased fell down on the right side of the road near the right rear wheel of the bus, sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital and that there was no rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 5. 5. A further plea has been taken by the respondent/Corporation in the counter to the effect that there was no negligent on the part of the driver of the bus and that the bus was proceeding slowly at the time of accident and there was about 6 feet thar road on the right hand side of the bus for the motor cyclist to pass through and that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligence on the part of the motor cyclist and therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation much less rupees six lakhs claimed in the petition. 6. On the side of the appellants/claimants, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked and on the side of the respondent, witness R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 7. After contest, the Tribunal on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,15,000/-together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. 8. To prove the issue of negligence, the appellants/claimants have examined Devadoss as P.W.2. In his evidence as P.W.2, he has deposed that he has known Irudayaraj, who died in the accident and that on 18.01.1993, at about 4 p.m. in the evening, the accident took place beyond the place Thirumazhisai and that he and the deceased Irudayaraj were traveling in separate two wheelers, proceeding towards Chennai and that the bus belonging to M.G.R. Transport Corporation coming from Chennai dashed head-on and as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot and that he has witnessed the accident directly and that the bus driver is responsible for the accident. 9. 9. R.W.1 Arulraj, the driver in his evidence has stated that on 18.01.1993 for the town bus route No.17G from Poonamallee to Thiruvallur, he has been the driver and that in front of Thirumazhisai bus stop, the motor cycle which came from the opposite direction dashed against the right back portion tyre of the bus and that the motor cyclist fell down and immediately he stopped the bus, got down to see that on the right side of the bus on the road sand was there and in that sand, the motor cyclist fell down and the accident has taken place because of the negligence of the motor cyclist and that the police has registered a case against him and that the said case has not come up for trial. In Ex.P1, death report of the deceased Irudayaraj, it is mentioned that the cause of death is due to the road accident. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of the Post Mortem Certificate in respect of the deceased Irudayaraj. In the said certificate, it is mentioned that the deceased would appeared to have died due to crush injuries of head. Admittedly before the tribunal, no copy of the First Information Report has been marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. Equally even the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report in respect of the bus involved in the accident has not been marked as exhibit on the side of the appellants/claimants. As a matter of fact, a certified copy of the charge sheet has also not been filed. However in Ex.P1 death report, it is stated that in Poonamallee police station Cr.No.322/93, a case under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. has been registered. As far as the present case is concerned, the evidence of P.W.2 Devadoss, eyewitness to the occurrence is unimpeachable as to the manner and happening of occurrence. Further, it is the clear cut evidence of P.W.2 Devadoss that on the side of the road, no sand was put. Though R.W.1 Arulraj the driver of the bus has stated in his evidence that the accident took place because of the negligence of the motor cyclist, his evidence is unilateral, self-serving and an interested one and therefore, this Court rejects the same. 10. Though R.W.1 Arulraj the driver of the bus has stated in his evidence that the accident took place because of the negligence of the motor cyclist, his evidence is unilateral, self-serving and an interested one and therefore, this Court rejects the same. 10. A perusal of Ex.P6 Post Mortem Certificate in respect of the deceased Irudayaraj do clearly indicates that head was found crushed from side to side with compound comminuted and the fracture of vault and base of skull and brain fragments were seen adhering to the bones. Disfiguration of face was due to comminuted fracture and mandible maxilla and both zygomatic bones. Apart from the above injury, there were abrasions: 1. 20X12 cms over right cheek 2. 8 X5 cms over outer aspect of upper part of right upper arm 3. 3X2 cms over outer aspect of right elbow 4. 2X1 cms over back of right hand. 5. 8X5 cm over back of left shoulder 6. 2X1 cms over outer aspect of upper part of right thigh 7. 3X2 cms on front of right knee 8. 5X3 cms over dorsum of right foot and a laceration 3X1 cms bone deep over right side of chin. 11. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the fact that the deceased Irudayaraj died in a road accident cannot be disputed. Suffice to point out that the evidence of P.W.2 Devadoss in regard to the manner of occurrence of accident is quite natural, convincing and therefore, this Court accepts the same and comes to an inevitable conclusion that the accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent/Corporation and that the said driver is responsible for causing the accident and the point is answered accordingly. 12. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, the Tribunal should have awarded the entire amount of rupees six lakhs or more as compensation instead of awarding Rs.3,15,000/- and that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in regard to the earnings of the deceased and that the tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and accepted the salary of the deceased Irudayaraj as Rs.3,050/-in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the respondent and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal in enhancing the award in the interest of justice. It is also further categorical stand of the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal should have atleast awarded a sum of Rs.4,14,800/- (Rs.3,050X12X17=6,22,200 -1/3 deducted) under the caption of loss of pecuniary benefits. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent relies on the decision T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd V. S.Rajapriya and others 2005 (3) CTC 373 wherein it is inter alia observed that multiplicand is ascertainment of loss of dependency and that choice of multiplier depends on age of deceased etc.,. 14. Further, the respondent side also relied on the decision U.P. State Road Transport Corporations case 2006 ACJ 2114 at 2115 wherein it is observed that the adoption of multiplier of 22 by the Tribunal and High Court is clearly indefensible and the Honble Apex Court has adopted the multiplier of 13. 15. P.W.1 Jospine Vimala (wife of the deceased Irudayaraj) in her evidence has stated that her husband Irudayaraj worked as Manager in the Export Company on a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- and that he died in the accident that took place on 18.01.1993 at 04.40 p.m. in the evening at Thirumazhisai and that the bus belonging to M.G.R Transport dashed against her husband as a result of which, he died and that she has not seen the accident and prays for compensation of rupees six lakhs. 16. P.W.2 Devadoss (eyewitness to the occurrence) in his evidence has stated that he has known the deceased Irudayaraj and both belonging to the same village and both used to go for work jointly and the deceased Irudayaraj worked in All Times Company situated opposite to his company and that All Times Company has a head office. 17. 16. P.W.2 Devadoss (eyewitness to the occurrence) in his evidence has stated that he has known the deceased Irudayaraj and both belonging to the same village and both used to go for work jointly and the deceased Irudayaraj worked in All Times Company situated opposite to his company and that All Times Company has a head office. 17. P.W.3 Suriyakumar in his evidence has stated that he worked in Gupta and Company and that the deceased Irudayaraj worked as Fabric Manager in All Time Fashion and Sports Wear Company and that this company is the sister of Gupta and Company and that the monthly salary is Rs.3,050/-and that he works as Assistant Clerk in the personnel department and that he works for 12 years and the deceased Irudayaraj joined in the said company in the year 1983 in that job and he has not acquired qualification in the concerned field and he had experience only. P.W.3 Suriyakumar in his evidence in cross examination has categorically stated that his salary is Rs.3,200/- for which there is a pay slip and in the year 1993, his salary was Rs.1,300/-. 18. P.W.4 Premkumar in his evidence has deposed that the deceased Irudayaraj worked as Fabric Manager for 7 years in their company, on a monthly salary of Rs.3,050/- and that the attendance register in respect of the deceased Irudayaraj (to know about his real working) is Ex.P7 and that Ex.P8 is the monthly salary of the deceased Irudayaraj during the year 1993 and that the Company Manager has given him authorisation to adduce evidence is Ex.P9 and that he has not seen the deceased Irudayaraj directly. 19. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate of the deceased Irudayaraj dated 13.02.1993 issued by All Times Fashion and Sports Wear Company, Madras-17 wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased Irudayaraj worked as Fabric Manager with them and he was drawing consolidated salary of Rs.3,050/-per month. Ex.P9 is the authorisation letter of All Times Fashion and Sports Wear Company dated 11.07.2001, authorizing Thiru S.J.Premkumar, S/o Balasubramanian working as Personal Assistant to represent their establishment. In Ex.P1 death report dated 19.01.1993, the date of death of the deceased Irudayaraj is mentioned as 18.01.1993 and the age is mentioned as 32 years and further the cause of death is stated as due to road accident. 20. In Ex.P1 death report dated 19.01.1993, the date of death of the deceased Irudayaraj is mentioned as 18.01.1993 and the age is mentioned as 32 years and further the cause of death is stated as due to road accident. 20. It cannot be gain said that P.W.4 Premkumar in his evidence (on 02.08.2001) has stated that presently the deceased Irudayaraj would have earned salary of Rs.7,000/-. 21. Ex.P3 is the Legal Heir Certificate dated 15.02.1993 issued in favour of the appellants/claimants stating that they are the heirs of the deceased Irudayaraj and that this Certificate is issued in lieu of death of Irudayaraj to receive the pending dues. In Ex.P6 Post Mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased Irudayaraj is mentioned as 32. In Ex.P1 death report also, the age of the deceased Irudayaraj is mentioned as 32. In Ex.P.4 Secondary School Leaving Certificate, in respect of the deceased Irudayaraj the date of birth is mentioned as 27.03.1959. Hence, the age of the deceased Irudayaraj on the date of accident 18.01.1993 is determined as 34 years by this Court based on Ex.P4 Secondary School Leaving Certificate. 22. Ex.P5 is the B.A. Provisional Certificate issued by the University of Madras in favour of the deceased Irudayaraj, where from it is evident that the deceased was a graduate. The Tribunal has determined the monthly salary of the deceased Irudayaraj at Rs.2,000/- and per year, it works out to Rs.24,000/-(Rs.2,000X12). It has deducted a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards the personnel expenses of the deceased Irudayaraj. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed annual dependency of the family at Rs.16,000/- (Rs.24,000-8,000/-). The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 17 and has arrived at a figure of Rs.2,72,000/- (Rs.16,000 X 17) towards loss of income and has awarded the same. Towards transport expenses and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-Towards loss of happiness and towards loss of life etc., the Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal has granted a total sum of Rs.3,15,000/-as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment. 23. In the instant case on hand, Ex.P8 Salary Certificate clearly discloses that the deceased Irudayaraj worked as Fabric Manager in All Times Fashion and Sports Wear Company, Madras 17 and he drew monthly consolidated salary of Rs.3,050/-. 23. In the instant case on hand, Ex.P8 Salary Certificate clearly discloses that the deceased Irudayaraj worked as Fabric Manager in All Times Fashion and Sports Wear Company, Madras 17 and he drew monthly consolidated salary of Rs.3,050/-. The evidence of P.W.4 Premkumar (Personal Assistant in the Company) is also to the effect that the deceased Irudayaraj received a salary of Rs.3,050/-per month and that he worked as Fabric Manager for 7 years. More over, the evidence of P.W.3 Suriyakumar is also to the effect that the deceased Irudayaraj worked in All Times Fashion and Sports Wear Company which is sister Company of Gupta and Company on a monthly salary of Rs.3,050/-. In view of the clinching and unassailable evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 in regard to the monthly salary of the deceased Irudayaraj as Rs.3,050/- coupled with Ex.P8 Salary Certificate, this Court determines the monthly salary of the deceased Irudayaraj as Rs.3,050/- and the contra view taken by the Tribunal in fixing the monthly salary of the deceased Irudayaraj at Rs.2,000/-is held by this Court as incorrect and improper on the facts and circumstances of the case, which float on the surface. 24. After deducting 1/3 towards personnel expenses of the deceased Irudayaraj, then it comes to Rs.2,034/- per month (Rs.3,050 - 1016/-). Per year, it works out to Rs.24,408/-(Rs.2,034X12). Since the age of the deceased Irudayaraj at the time of his death is fixed as 34 by this Court then the proper multiplier to be adopted is 17 as per the Second Schedule Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Section 163 A) and accordingly, it comes to Rs.4,14,936/- (Rs.24,408X17). Thus, the appellants/claimants have sustained loss of income of Rs.4,14,936. Towards transportation and funeral expenses, this Court awards a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Towards pain and suffering and for loss of consortium, this Court grants a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Towards loss of future happenings, this Court grants a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4,57,936/- as total compensation. Accordingly, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,57,936/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty seven thousand nine hundred and thirty six only) as total compensation together with interest as 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment, payable by the respondent/Transport Corporation. 25. The tribunal has not fixed the lawyers fee though it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to determine the same. 25. The tribunal has not fixed the lawyers fee though it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to determine the same. However, this Court fixes the lawyers fee at Rs.11,759/-. 26. Already, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,000/-along with interest at 9% p.a. If the award amount of Rs.3,15,000/-together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit has already been deposited by the respondent/Transport Corporation then the difference sum of Rs.1,42,936/-(Rupees one lakh forty two thousand nine hundred and thirty six only) along with interest at 9% p.a. (as enhanced compensation) is directed to be paid by the respondent/Transport Corporation by means of deposit into the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal namely the Sub Judge, Poonamallee to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.629 of 1993 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent/Corporation is also directed to deposit the lawyers fee of Rs.11,759/-(Rupees eleven thousand seven hundred and fifty nine only) within a period of two months granted by this Court. On such deposit, a liberty is given to the appellants/Claimants to receive the balance amount by filing a necessary payment out application as per the Civil Rules Practice. 27. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in above terms and consequently, the award dated 14.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Poonamallee in M.C.O.P.No.629 of 1993 is modified. The Tribunal is directed to ensure the proper payment of court fee by the appellants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respective parties are directed to bear their own costs.