Judgment :- The claimants, who lost their only son in a motor accident, have come forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai dated 31.01.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.2206 of 1997 in so far as the disallowed portion of the claim is concerned. 2. Arulkumar, son of the petitioners herein, at the age of 25 met with a road accident on 05.05.1997 at about 7.40 p.m. while he was proceeding in his motorcycle as the bus bearing Registration No.TML 2000 belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation dashed against the said motorcycle at the junction of 4th Avenue and 1st Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Contending that the driver of the above said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and turned the bus at the junction without carrying for the safety of the deceased who was proceeding in his motorcycle and that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation was the cause of the accident. The petitioners assessed the damages to which they were entitled at Rs.3,13,000/-, but filed the claim petition restricting their claim to Rs.2,25,000/- alone. 3. The petition was resisted by the respondent Transport Corporation denying the petition allegations regarding the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and contending that the accident took place solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, who was proceeding in his motorcycle. It was also contended that the motorcyclist came and hit against the left side body of the bus and fell down from his motorcycle due to which he sustained the fatal injuries. The respondent Transport Corporation also contended that the amount claimed as compensation was highly excessive and exorbitant. .4. After framing necessary issues, the Tribunal tried the case, pronounced a Judgment and passed an Award on 31.01.2002 holding the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation responsible for the accident as he drove the bus with rashness and negligence, and holding the respondent Transport Corporation liable to pay compensation to the petitioners based on the theory of fault. Based on Ex.P.4-X Standard Mark Sheet which contains the date of birth of the deceased, the Tribunal found the deceased to be aged 25 years at the time of his death. Based on Ex.P.4-X Standard Mark Sheet which contains the date of birth of the deceased, the Tribunal found the deceased to be aged 25 years at the time of his death. Taking into account Ex.P.1-Legal Heir Certificate, Ex.P.2-Mark Sheet of the deceased, Ex.P.3-Driving Licence of the deceased, Ex.P.4-X Standard Mark Sheet and Ex.P.5-Family Card issued to the petitioners family, the Tribunal held that the deceased was the only son of the petitioners. Relying on Ex.P.6-Salary Certificate, the Tribunal held that he was employed by Hex Couriers and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,200/- per month, deducted one third from it, selected 15 as the appropriate multiplier and assessed the loss of dependency caused to the parents of the deceased at Rs.1,44,000/-. Adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,69,000/-as compensation to which the appellants/ petitioners were entitled. 5. Now the appellants have come forward with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and not commensurate with the loss occasioned to the appellants/petitioners. The appellants have contended that the Tribunal had not taken into account the fact that the deceased had completed the diploma course in Electronics and Communication Engineering but had not got through the examination due to one reason or other; that the Tribunal should have considered the reasonable expectation of the parents of the deceased that the deceased would have obtained the diploma atleast within a couple of years and secured a job with more monetary benefits and that if such prospective earnings were taken into account, the Tribunal should have fixed the average monthly income of the deceased at the minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that if the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the amounts claimed by the petitioners as compensation would be even less than the amount to which the petitioners would be entitled as fair and reasonable compensation and that hence, the Tribunal ought to have passed an award allowing compensation as prayed for. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent has also been heard in this regard. The materials available on record were also perused. .7. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent has also been heard in this regard. The materials available on record were also perused. .7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: ."Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is inadequate requiring upward revision?" 8. The Tribunal after meticulously perusing the evidence adduced on either side, came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the respondent by its driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving in his motorcycle. A copy of the First Information Report, a copy of the Rough Sketch prepared by the Investigation Officer and a copy of the Postmortem Certificate have been exhibited on the side of the appellants/petitioners as Exs.P.8 to P.10 respectively. The respondent has produced on its side, copies of the Judgment of the Criminal Court and Reports of the Motor Vehicles Inspector relating to the bus as well as the motorcycle as Exs.R.1 to R.3 respectively. The driver of the bus which is said to be the offending vehicle was examined as the sole witness (RW1) on the side of the respondent. The first petitioner and one eyewitness named Ravikumar and the Sub Inspector of Police to speak about the investigation conducted by the Police were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3. This Court also, after going through the said evidence and having an independent re-appreciation of evidence, comes to the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Moreover, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondent herein. Under these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the said finding of the Tribunal has got to be confirmed. .9. From Ex.P.4 -X Standard Mark Sheet of the deceased, it is obvious that he was born on 27.08.1972. Therefore, at the time of accident, he had completed 24 years of age and had not completed 25 years of age. In case of death not only the age of the deceased but also the age of the claimants are relevant for selecting the appropriate multiplier. Therefore, at the time of accident, he had completed 24 years of age and had not completed 25 years of age. In case of death not only the age of the deceased but also the age of the claimants are relevant for selecting the appropriate multiplier. In this case, the claimants being elder than the deceased, their age alone should have been taken into consideration for the selection of the appropriate multiplier. In the family card issued to the petitioners family in 1993 the age of the deceased was shown to be 19 years and the petitioners 1 and 2 were shown to be aged 49 and 38 years respectively. The accident took place in the year 1997. But the appellants /petitioners themselves have given their respective ages to be 49 years and 60 years respectively. Therefore, the age given in the petition has to be taken as the basis on which the multiplier is to be adopted. Among the claimants, the second claimant being the younger, her age as found in the petition is to be taken as the basis on which the multiplier is to be selected. As per petition averments, she was aged about 49 years at the time of filing the claim petition which was within a couple of months after the accident. Therefore, the adoption of 15 as the appropriate multiplier has to be held erroneous and the proper multiplier to be adopted in this case is 13. 10. As per the Salary Certificate-Ex.P.6, the deceased Arulkumar was employed in Hex Couriers and was drawing a salary of Rs.1,200/-per month. Of course, the deceased being a young chap and having completed the course leading to the conferment of diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the reasonable expectation of the parents for better job with better pay for their son should have been taken into account in deciding the average monthly income of the deceased seems to have some force. But the fact that the deceased was not able to come out successfully from the Institution at the end of 3 years course and the further fact that the diploma holders have to wait for some years to get a suitable job and that they should even go for the apprenticeship before getting regular employment, should also be taken into account. Therefore, this Court feels that the average monthly income of the deceased could be reasonably assessed at Rs.2,000/- Accordingly, the average annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.24,000/-. Deducting one third from the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance Rs.16,000/-alone shall be the annual loss of dependency caused to the appellants/petitioners. If this amount is multiplied by the selected multiplier 13, we get Rs.2,08,000/-as the amount of compensation to which the petitioners shall be entitled on the head of loss of dependency. .11. The fact that the deceased was the only son to the petitioners will justify the award of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. This is what exactly the Tribunal has done by awarding a total sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. The same has got to be confirmed by showing different amounts on different heads. So far as the award of a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate is concerned, this Court is not in a position to uphold the same because no loss to the estate has been proved by the appellants/petitioners. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that some amount should have been awarded towards loss of expectation of life as the deceased died at the prime age of 24. Accepting the said contention, this Court feels atleast a sum of Rs.5,000/-can be awarded on the above said head of damages. If such a calculation is made, the total compensation amount to which the appellants/ petitioners are entitled will come to Rs.2,28,000/-which is a little more than the amount claimed by the appellants/ petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal should have allowed the claim in full and passed an award as prayed for, fixing the total compensation as Rs.2,25,000/-. 12. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This Court does not think that the same is either low or excessive. No interference is warranted regarding the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal succeeds and the award of the Tribunal has got to be modified, as indicated above. 13. This Court does not think that the same is either low or excessive. No interference is warranted regarding the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal succeeds and the award of the Tribunal has got to be modified, as indicated above. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,69,000/- to Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand only) which amount is to be paid by the respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The respondent is liable to pay the cost to the appellants in both the Courts.