Judgment :- The metropolitan transport corporation which figured as the respondent before the tribunal in MACT.O.P.No.258 of 2000 is the appellant herein. The respondents who are the wife and sons of the deceased Elumalai Reddiar, who died in an accident that took place at about 9.00 a.m. on 12. 1999 at the Avadi Bus Terminus had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation contending that the above said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation and bearing Regn.No.TN-01 N-2925. It was the further contention of the respondents that the deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of his death and was having a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. Though they assessed the damages to which they were entitled at Rs.1,60,000/-, they restricted the claim to Rs.1,50,000/-. The claim was resisted by the appellant herein/respondent denying the petition averments regarding the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and contending that the deceased Elumalai Reddiar tried to get into the bus after the same started its journey from Avadi Bus Terminus and that in such an attempt due to his own negligence, he fell down and was trapped under the left side rear wheel and thus sustained the injuries leading to his death. The appellant/respondent also disputed the correctness of the averments found in the petition regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It was also contended that the amount claimed as compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant. 2. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted enquiry in which two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and four documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 on the side of the respondents herein/petitioners. The conductor and driver of the bus involved in the accident were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. No document was marked on the side of the appellant/respondent. 3. The conductor and driver of the bus involved in the accident were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. No document was marked on the side of the appellant/respondent. 3. The Tribunal considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, brought before it and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/respondent transport corporation and that hence was liable to pay compensation to the respondents herein/petitioners for the death of the above said Elumalai Reddiar. The Tribunal fixed the age and annual income of the deceased at 69 years and Rs.28,000/- per annum respectively, deducted 1/3rd from the same, applied multiplier 5 and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,03,500/- with the following split up particulars:- Loss of dependency and benefits caused to the petitioners due to the death of Elumalai Reddiar :Rs. 96,000/- Loss of consortium, love and affection: Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,500/- TOTAL Rs.1,03,500/- The Tribunal directed that the said amount should be paid by the appellant/respondent transport corporation together with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs. The said amount was apportioned among the respondents as follows:- First respondent : Rs.73,500/- Respondents 2 to 4 : Rs.10,000/- each 4. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award of the Tribunal, the appellant/respondent transport corporation has come forward with this appeal on various grounds set in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal. 5. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Jermiah, learned counsel for the respondents. The materials available on record were also perused. 6. According to the averments made by the respondents in their petition, on 10. 1999 at about 9.00 a.m. when the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-01 N-2925 and Route No.40A was at the Avadi Bus Terminus, the deceased Elumalai Reddiar was in the process of getting into the bus and the driver of the said bus moved the same without even noticing the above said Elumalai Reddiar who was in the process of getting into the bus. The same resulted in the unfortunate accident, as the said deceased Elumalai Reddiar fell down and was caught under the left side rear wheel of the bus. 7. The same resulted in the unfortunate accident, as the said deceased Elumalai Reddiar fell down and was caught under the left side rear wheel of the bus. 7. On the other hand, the appellant/respondent transport corporation contended before the Tribunal that, after the bus had started moving from the Bus Terminus, the deceased Elumalai Reddiar attempted to get into the moving bus, lost his balance and fell down and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. .8. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report registered by the police against the driver of the bus. The information to the police was furnished by one Rajammal, the sister of deceased Elumalai Reddiar. It transpires from the contents of the FIR, she was also accompanying the said Elumalai Reddiar at the time of accident. The said case was registered by the police when the deceased Elumalai Reddiar had been admitted in the hospital for treatment after the accident. As he later on succumbed to the injuries on the very same day, the case was altered for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC from the one for an offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. The certified copy of the alteration report is Ex.A2. From Ex.A1, it is found that the sister of deceased gave the information to the police to the effect that her brother slipped and fell down from the bus when he was in the process of getting into the bus through the front entrance and that in the said process his left leg caught under the left side rear wheel of the bus. It is also obvious from the contents of the FIR that he was transported in the very same bus to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, where first aid treatment was given and later on as per the advice of the Medical Officer, he was admitted as an in-patient in Royapettah Government Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Though, P.W.1 made an attempt to give an account of the accident in tune with the petition averments he has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not an eye witness to the accident in question. Though, P.W.1 made an attempt to give an account of the accident in tune with the petition averments he has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not an eye witness to the accident in question. Hence his evidence will not be helpful to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant herein/respondent transport corporation. Rajammal, sister of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2. She happened to be the person who informed the police based on which the Criminal case was registered. Though, she might have stated in her evidence that while his brother was in the process of getting into the bus through the front side entrance, the driver moved the bus which resulted in the unfortunate accident, she had stated that it was the front wheel which ran over the deceased. It is quite contra to what is found in Ex.A1. As per Ex.A1, it was her statement before the police that the deceased fell down while attempting to get into the bus and the left side rear wheel ran over his left thigh. 9. On the other hand, the appellant/respondent transport corporation has chosen to examine the driver and conductor of the bus involved in the accident. The conductor of the bus who was examined as R.W.1 would state that within 5 seconds after the bus was moved from the bus terminus, some of the persons tapped the body of the bus pursuant to which the bus was stopped and that when he got down to see what happened, an elderly person aged about 70 years was found caught under the bus. However, he would also state that he was no sure as to whether the said bus was the one that run over the deceased. R.W.1 would also state that he did not know how the deceased fell down. It is not his evidence that the deceased attempted to enter into the moving bus and in such an attempt he fell down and caught under the wheel. The driver of the bus, who was examined as R.W.2 would state that after he moved the bus, some persons raised alarm pursuant to which the bus was stopped to know that an elderly person was injured. The driver of the bus, who was examined as R.W.2 would state that after he moved the bus, some persons raised alarm pursuant to which the bus was stopped to know that an elderly person was injured. He has also not come forward with a clear statement to the effect that the deceased tried to get into the moving bus and fell down in such an attempt. .10. When the said evidence of the witnesses examined on either side is taken into consideration, it can be seen that all the three witnesses have not deposed giving entirely the correct account of the accident in question. This court, on a re-appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, is of the considered view that the conductor as well as the driver of the bus should have acted with negligence, which resulted in the accident. Had the driver been more cautious, he would not have moved the bus when the passenger was in the process of getting into the bus. Even assuming that the deceased made an attempt to enter into the bus after it started moving, the conductor should have warned him not to make such an attempt. In this case, the fact that both the conductor and the driver of the bus pleaded ignorance as to whether the deceased fell down while getting into the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-01 N-2925 and Route No.40A of which they were driver and conductor, will be enough to held that there is want of care on their part. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was negligence on the part of the employees of the appellant/ transport corporation cannot be interfered with. The further conclusion made by the Tribunal that the appellant/transport corporation was liable to pay compensation to the respondents/petitioners also has got to be confirmed. 11. No document to prove the age of the deceased has been produced. In the postmortem certificate - Ex.A3, the age of the deceased is given as 69 years approximately. The legal heir certificate marked as Ex.A4 shows that the respondents/petitioners are the wife and sons of the deceased. Though it cant be said that the grown up sons were depending upon the income of the deceased, it cant be denied that the support they were getting from the father had been lost as the deceased died due to the accident. Though it cant be said that the grown up sons were depending upon the income of the deceased, it cant be denied that the support they were getting from the father had been lost as the deceased died due to the accident. So far as the first respondent is concerned, though there is possibility to hold that she is being maintained by her sons, we cannot totally reject the contention that she was dependent on the income of her husband. The deceased was said to an agriculturist owning 15.00 acres of land and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. But there is nothing to show that he was having such an income. Even assuming that he had such an extent of land, the same is not lost to the respondents/petitioners due to the death of the deceased Elumalai Reddiar. The corpus, namely the land would be available for them from which they would be getting income. The actual loss will be the personal labour contributed by the deceased. Taking into account, the age of the deceased, his monthly income has been rightly taken by the Tribunal as Rs.2,400/-. However, while working out the calculation, the Tribunal has committed a clerical mistake in noting the monthly income as Rs.2,500/- at one place and Rs.25,000/-at another place. Despite such a mistake, the Tribunal has rightly held that the loss of dependency after deducting 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased shall be Rs.1,600/-. When it is converted to annual dependency it will come to Rs.19,200/-, which has been correctly worked out by the Tribunal. .12. As the deceased was aged about 69 years, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier 5 and worked out the loss of dependency/benefits at Rs.96,000/-. For funeral expenses though a sum of Rs.5,000/- should have been awarded, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,500/-. For the loss of consortium and love and affection, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and thus arrived at a total sum of Rs.1,03,500/-as the compensation to which the respondents/petitioners were entitled. Though, the Tribunal could have awarded a little more for funeral expenses, the respondents have not chosen to prefer any appeal or cross-objection as the margin is only minimum. This court does not propose to exercise its power under Rule 33 Order 41 C.P.C. to enhance the compensation. Though, the Tribunal could have awarded a little more for funeral expenses, the respondents have not chosen to prefer any appeal or cross-objection as the margin is only minimum. This court does not propose to exercise its power under Rule 33 Order 41 C.P.C. to enhance the compensation. In any event, the challenge made to the award by the appellant/transport corporation on the question of quantum cannot be sustained in the light of the views expressed by this court in the foregoing paragraphs to the effect that the Tribunal should have awarded even a little more than Rs.1,03,500/-. 13. Under these circumstances, this court, comes to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the award of the Tribunal on the question of quantum. Hence the same has got to be confirmed. In order to discourage such frivolous appeals being filed even in cases wherein bare minimum amounts alone have been awarded as compensation, this court deem it fit to direct the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondents/petitioners. 14. In the result this appeal is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents/petitioners.