JUDGMENT : M. Venugopal, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is projected against the award dated 5.9.2001 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 151 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Sub Court, Devakottai granting a total compensation of Rs. 2,20,500/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty thousand and five hundred only) to the respondents/claimants together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment. 2. The short facts of the claim are as follows: on 28.03.2000 at about 1.45 p.m. in the afternoon the deceased Jayanthi came in the van which was proceeding from Devakottai to Karaikudi and she got down at the Municipal dumping waste place and she cross the road across in order to proceed to the place where clothes were washed and at that time, the Government bus bearing Registration No. TN-63-0588 which came from Devakottai to Karaikudi was driven by its driver in fast speed, negligently dashed against the said Jayanthi, as a result of which the tire of the bus ran on the head of the deceased Jayanthi, as a result of which her brain came out and she died on the spot. In Crime No. 90 of 2000 the Karaikudi Police Station based on a complaint has registered a case u/s 304(A) of I.P.C. in connection with the accident and the same is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi. The accident took place because of the negligent driving of the bus by its driver who drove the offending vehicle TN-63-0588, the deceased Jayanthi was good at studies. She was the eldest daughter to the family. But for the accidental death, the deceased would have prosecuted her further studies and could have obtained a good job and helped the family. The income of the deceased Jayanthi would have been four times higher than the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as prescribed under the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the deceased Jayanthi's annual income should be fixed at a minimum of Rs. 60,000/- and accordingly, the respondents/claimants were entitled to receive the compensation after deducting one third towards the personal expenses of the deceased Jayanthi if the annual income of the deceased Jayanthi was taken as Rs. 40,000/- then the respondents/claimants were entitled to claim a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Towards damage of clothes the respondents/claimants claim Rs. 500/-. 60,000/- and accordingly, the respondents/claimants were entitled to receive the compensation after deducting one third towards the personal expenses of the deceased Jayanthi if the annual income of the deceased Jayanthi was taken as Rs. 40,000/- then the respondents/claimants were entitled to claim a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Towards damage of clothes the respondents/claimants claim Rs. 500/-. Towards hospital and transport expenses the respondents/claimants claim Rs. 800/-. For expenses incurred towards transportation of deceased Jayanthi the respondents/claimants claim a sum of Rs. 800/-. Towards funeral expenses a claim of Rs. 10,000/- was made. Towards loss of estate a claim of Rs. 25,000/- was made. In all the respondents/claimants claim a restricted compensation of Rs. 8,40,000/- along with interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment with costs. The appellant/Transport Corporation took a stand that the deceased child Jayanthi was standing under the shade of a tree and without observing the traffic on the road fastly and negligently, without observing the vehicle coming in the opposite direction she ran on the right side of the road in order to cross the road and that the compensation claimed was an exaggerated and that the compensation was not calculated as per law and the claim petition was not maintainable in law. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of respondents/claimants witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On the side of the appellant/respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 4. After contest, the Tribunal on examination of oral and documentary evidence has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,20,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment as compensation. 5. On the side of the appellant/respondent, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. 4. After contest, the Tribunal on examination of oral and documentary evidence has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,20,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment as compensation. 5. To prove negligence on the side of respondents/claimants, Rejendran has been examined as P.W.2 and he has deposed that on 28.03.2000 at about 1.45 p.m. in the afternoon near Devakottai Rasta Municipal waste dumping place, the Government bus bearing Registration No. TN-63-0588 was proceeding from Devakottai to Karaikudi in high speed and Jayanthi after seeing her father, who was in the place where the clothes were washed, she was proceeding there and in the waste dumping place the bus dashed against her as a result of which she suffered head injury and died on the spot and at the time of happening of occurrence the van in which Jayanthi travelled was not there and he gave a complaint about the accident in the police station at about 2.15 in the afternoon and immediately informed the father of the deceased Jayanthi. In his cross examination P.W.2-Rajendran has stated that the deceased Jayanthi got down from the van and made an attempt to cross the road and near the occurrence place he was coming in the school and no other person as witness the occurrence. 6. In Ex.A.1-Certified copy of FIR the complainant is one Rajendran, who has been examined as P.W.2 before the Tribunal. A perusal of Ex.A.1-certified copy of FIR shows that the complainant viz., P.W.2-Rajendran has clearly spoken about the manner and happening of occurrence in lucid terms. In fact, the complainant-Rajendran in his complaint specifically has inter alia stated that Veerappan's daughter Jayanthi got down from the van and walked across the road in order to reach the place where clothes were washed and at that time, the Government bus TN-63-0588 which came from Devakottai to Karaikudi driven by Lazar, S/o. Micheal of Kallupatti, name ascertained later, drove the bus in high speed and dashed against the said Jayanthi and as a result of which, the tire of the bus ran across the head of the Jayanthi and her brain came out and she died on the spot. In short, the evidence of P.W.2-Rajendran before the Tribunal coincides with the averments made by him in Ex.A.1-certified copy of FIR. In Ex.A.1-certified copy of FIR, the name of the accused is mentioned as Lazar, who has been subsequently examined as witness R.W.1 before the Tribunal by the appellant Corporation. It is evident from Ex.A.1-certified copy of FIR that the Karaikudi South Police have registered a criminal case against the driver of the bus R.W.1-Lazar u/s 304(A) IPC. It is to be noted that P.W.2-Rajendran in his complaint Ex.A.1-FIR and in his evidence has clearly stated that the deceased Jayanthi cross the road after getting down from the van to reach the place of washing clothes. 7. R.W.1-Lazar, bus driver of the offending vehicle TN-63-0588 in his evidence has stated that he drove the bus which was involved in the accident and took the bus at 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon at Devakottai and was driving the said bus through Eravayal and was proceeding to Karaikudi and when the bus after passing Rasta Railway gate and the arch and came at a place where three roads were meeting, one Tata 407 van was standing on the left side and when the bus went passed the van, out of three children from the van one child suddenly cross the road from left side to right side and at that time, the accident took place and the accident occurred because of the negligence of the child in crossing the road suddenly and the accident had not occurred due to his negligence. The evidence of bus driver, R.W.1-Lazar also points out to the negligence aspect of the deceased child Jayanthi in crossing the road suddenly after getting down from the van. 8. Suffice it to state that the evidence of P.W.2-Rajendran and the evidence of R.W.1-Lazar are on the same footing in regard to the negligence aspect of the deceased child in crossing the road after getting down from the van. Hence, the aspect of 'contributory negligence' comes into operative play in the instant case on hand, in the considered opinion of this Court. 9. From Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, it is clear that the driver of the bus, R.W.1-Lazar has been charge sheeted u/s 304(A) of IPC. Hence, the aspect of 'contributory negligence' comes into operative play in the instant case on hand, in the considered opinion of this Court. 9. From Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, it is clear that the driver of the bus, R.W.1-Lazar has been charge sheeted u/s 304(A) of IPC. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of post-mortem certificate in respect of the deceased Jayanthi, wherin the Doctor has opined that 'the deceased would appear to have died of crush injury skull haemorrhage shock before 6 -8 hours'. In Ex.A.4-certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, the Motor Vehicles Inspector has opined that 'this accident happened not due to any of the mechanical defects of this vehicle'. Even though the deceased Jayanthi after getting down from the van has suddenly cross the road so as to reach the place where clothes are washed, it has transpired from the evidence of P.W.2-Rajendran that the bus driver R.W.1-Lazar has driven the bus in high speed at the time of accident and therefore, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased Jayanthi in crossing the road negligently and suddenly and also due to the negligent driving of the bus by its driver R.W.1-Lazar and that he is also equally responsible for causing the accident and the point is answered accordingly. 10. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent Transport Corporation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and without any basis and that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the multiplier at 15 and further that the Tribunal has erred in determining the annual income of the deceased Jayanthi at Rs. 60,000/- and her annual contribution to her family at Rs. 40,000/-. 11. 60,000/- and her annual contribution to her family at Rs. 40,000/-. 11. In regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded for the death of Jayanthi it is to be pointed out that P.W.1-Veerappan/second respondent/second claimant in his evidence has deposed that his deceased eldest daughter Jayanthi aged 13 at the time of accident she was studying in 5th standard at the Gandhi Samadharma Padagasalai and that during study period she was an excellent student and that the deceased daughter Jayanthi apart from her study time, during the rest of the time she was helpful in his washing job and that his family has been spoiled because of the death of the said Jayanthi and that his family believed in the future of the deceased Jayanthi. The respondents/claimants in the claim petition have claimed in all a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- together with interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment, as compensation for the death of the deceased Jayanthi. The Tribunal has arrived at a sum of Rs. 3,66,000/- towards the total income of the deceased Jayanthi and after deducting one third, it has calculated the loss of income at Rs. 2,40,000/-, as seen from para 7 of the award. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 15. 12. It is significant to make a mention that Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited (1942) AC 601 has observed as follows: There is no question here of what may be called sentimental damage, bereavement or pain and suffering. It is a hard matter of pounds, shillings and pence subject to the element of reasonable future probabilities. The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then, there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years' purchase. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thereby ceased to be a dependant, and other like matters of speculation and doubt. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thereby ceased to be a dependant, and other like matters of speculation and doubt. Further, he added that "the damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. In assessing the circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in the diminution of the damages must be considered the actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and on the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death." 13. In Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 9 , on Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: In calculating the amount of compensation in this case we lean ourselves to adopt the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Though it was formulated for the purpose of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we find it a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation than any other method so far as the present case is concerned. 14. Ex.A.5 is the xerox copy of record sheet issued by the Headmaster of the Gandhi Samadharma Padagasalai, Amaravathipudur wherein the progress of the pupil Jayanthi has been stated to be good in respect of III and IV standards and in respect of V standard, it has been stated to be fair. However, the conduct of the deceased Jayanthi from III to V standards has been stated to be good. In Ex.A.5 in respect of V standard, the deceased Jayanthi is stated to have left the school on 28.03.2000 (obviously because of her death arising out of the accident). Ex.A.7 is the original record sheet of the deceased Jayanthi. Ex.A.6 is the certificate dated 31.07.2001 issued by the school Headmaster wherein it has been certified that during 1999-2000 period the deceased Jayanthi has been doing good in her studies at V standard. 15. Ex.A.7 is the original record sheet of the deceased Jayanthi. Ex.A.6 is the certificate dated 31.07.2001 issued by the school Headmaster wherein it has been certified that during 1999-2000 period the deceased Jayanthi has been doing good in her studies at V standard. 15. According to the structured formula 15 multiplier is the appropriate one as prescribed under the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the considered opinion of this Court. Moreover, as per this Schedule in the absence of any evidence about the income of the injured or the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. If the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is multiplied by multiplier of 15, it comes to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 16. In the claim petition, towards transport expenses a sum of Rs. 800/- is claimed and this Court awards the said sum of Rs. 800/-. Towards transport expenses (after conducting post-mortem) a sum of Rs. 800/- is claimed in the petition and this Court grants the same. Towards damage of clothes, the respondents/claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- in the petition and this Court grants the same. Therefore, this Court awards a sum of Rs. 2,27,100/- (Rs.2,25,000 + Rs. 800 + Rs. 800 + Rs. 500) as compensation to the respondents/claimants for the death of their daughter Jayanthi, who was involved in the accident. Since this Court has held that the deceased Jananthi has also contributed to the cause of the accident, this Court opines that it is prudent and appropriate to deduct 15% from and out of the total compensation of Rs. 2,27,100/-, i.e. Rs. 34,065/- and accordingly, the respondents/claimants are entitled only to claim a compensation of Rs. 1,93,035/- (Rupees one lakh ninety three thousand and thirty five only) together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment, payable by the appellant/respondent Corporation. Resultantly, the award of a sum of Rs. 2,20,500/- determined by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents/claimants is slightly on the higher side. 17. The lawyers fee is fixed at Rs. 6861/- by this Court and the same is directed to be paid by the appellant/respondent Transport Corporation. 18. Resultantly, the award of a sum of Rs. 2,20,500/- determined by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents/claimants is slightly on the higher side. 17. The lawyers fee is fixed at Rs. 6861/- by this Court and the same is directed to be paid by the appellant/respondent Transport Corporation. 18. Earlier in C.M.P. No. 385 of 2004 dated 10.09.2004 this Court has passed the following order: Interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire amount of compensation with interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 151 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Devakottai within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the interim stay shall stand automatically vacated. 19. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award dated 05.09.2001 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 151 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Sub Court, Devakottai is modified. It is open to the respondents/claimants to receive the amount to which they are entitled to from the Tribunal by filing appropriate application as per Civil Rules of Practice. Equally, liberty is given to the appellant/respondent Corporation to receive the amount to which they are entitled to by filing necessary application as per Civil Rules of Practice in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.