Judgment :- The respondents in M.C.O.P.No.296 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kacheepuram has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the judgment and decree of the said Tribunal dated 29.01.2001 made in the said M.C.O.P. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein had filed the above said M.C.O.P.No.296/1999 claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-as compensation for the death of one Arumugam, husband of the first respondent herein, on 212. 1998 in an accident that occurred at Kacheepuram bus stand at about 4.00 a.m. The allegations made in the petition, in brief, are as follows:- The deceased Arumugam was employed as a Special Assistant in UCO Bank, Tuticorin branch. On 212. 1998, the above said deceased Arumugam who travelled from Trichy to Kacheepuram as a passenger in the bus belonging to the appellant bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-1353, was in the process of getting down from the said bus after the same had reached and stopped at Kancheepuram bus stand. While he was thus getting down from the bus through the front entrance, the driver of the said bus suddenly moved it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased Arumugam fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over him. The deceased Arumugam sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body and was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram, where he died at 4.45 a.m. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant transport corporation and hence the appellant transport corporation herein/respondent is liable to pay compensation to the respondents herein/petitioners, who are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased Arumugam. The deceased Arumugam was having a monthly income of Rs.12,500/-per month. Though the respondents herein/petitioners would be entitled to claim more, they restricted their claim to Rs.15,00,000/-and prayed that an award directing the appellant transport corporation to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-with interest and cost to the respondents 1 to 4 should be passed. 3. The appellant transport corporation/respondent contested the case by filing a counter statement, the contents of which in brief of are as follows:- The allegation found in the petition regarding the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation is false. On 212. 3. The appellant transport corporation/respondent contested the case by filing a counter statement, the contents of which in brief of are as follows:- The allegation found in the petition regarding the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation is false. On 212. 1998, at about 4.00 a.m, the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-1353 belonging to the appellant transport corporation that came from Trichy, was stopped after it reached Kancheepuram bus stand. The conductor of the said bus asked the passengers bound for Kancheepuram to get down. After the passengers got down at Kacheepuram bus stand, the bus started from the said bus stand. At the very moment, the deceased Arumugam who had been travelling as one of the passengers in the said bus, suddenly woke up and without informing either the conductor or the driver went towards the footboard and was standing on the foot-board. On seeing the same he was warned not to stand on the foot board and alight after the bus would stop. The said passenger, namely the deceased Arumugam, was also a physically handicapped person. As he continued to stand on the foot-board without heeding to the warning given by the conductor, he lost his balance and fell down from the foot-board. Thus the accident which resulted in the death of deceased Arumugam occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence the appellant transport corporation is not liable to pay any compensation and the claim petition should be dismissed with costs. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kancheepuram framed necessary issues and conducted trial, in which two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 on the side of the respondents herein/claimants. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. 5. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kancheepuram framed necessary issues and conducted trial, in which two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 on the side of the respondents herein/claimants. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/respondent. 5. At the conclusion of trial, the Tribunal considered the evidence brought before it in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and, upon such a consideration, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-1353 and that hence the appellant transport corporation was liable to pay compensation to the respondents herein/petitioners in the M.C.O.P as the legals heirs and dependents of deceased Arumugam. Based on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, the Tribunal fixed the monthly salary of the deceased prior to the accident at Rs.13,000/-. Similarly, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at the time of his death as 48 years and selected 13 as the appropriate multiplier for assessing compensation on the head of loss of benefit and dependency caused to the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Arumugam. After debiting the deductions, his take home salary was fixed at Rs.6,186.15P. As the deceased obtained house building loan, a sum of Rs.2,350/- per month was deducted from his salary. The said amount was also added to his income and a sum of Rs.8,536.15P was arrived at as the net monthly salary of the deceased Arumugam. Taking other aspects also into consideration, the Tribunal fixed the average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. The same was multiplied by 12 to find out the annual net income. The produce was again multiplied by 13 and thus the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.14,04,000/-. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased Arumugam and awarded a sum of Rs.10,53,000/-as the compensation for the loss of benefits and dependency occasioned to the respondents 1 to 4 herein/ claimants. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium occasioned to the first respondent herein and a sum of Rs.15,000/-each (totally Rs.45,000) to respondents 2 to 4 for the loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium occasioned to the first respondent herein and a sum of Rs.15,000/-each (totally Rs.45,000) to respondents 2 to 4 for the loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.5,000/-to mental shock and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards physical expenses were added to the said amount to arrive at the figure Rs.11,43,000/- as the total amount of compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 4 by the appellant transport corporation. The Tribunal has also directed payment of interest on the said amount from the date of petition till realisation @ 9% per annum and also cost. The said amount was directed to be apportioned among the respondents 1 to 4 in the ratio of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.1,71,500/-and Rs.1,71,500/- respectively. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2002 the appellant transport corporation, which figured as the sole respondent in the M.C.O.P, has brought-forth this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:- "1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-45 N-1353 belonging to the appellant transport corporation is erroneous? 2) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant requiring reduction in this appeal?" 8. This court heard the submissions made by Ms. S. Geetha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.M. Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The materials available on record were also perused. 9. The first and foremost contention of the appellant transport corporation based on which the award of the Tribunal is challenged is that the Tribunal committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. 9. The first and foremost contention of the appellant transport corporation based on which the award of the Tribunal is challenged is that the Tribunal committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. The learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation would contend that the contention of the respondents as if the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries as the bus was moved by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without ensuring safe landing of the passenger including the deceased who alighted from the bus was not substantiated by the respondents herein by adducing sufficient evidence; that the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant herein/respondent through R.W.1 was improperly disbelieved by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal would not have arrived at the conclusion that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus had it properly appreciated the evidence adduced before it. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have at least held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that a portion of the amount calculated as compensation should have been disallowed for the said contributory negligence. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard have also been heard and this court gave its anxious considerations to the same. 10. It is a fact not in dispute that the accident took place at about 4.00 a.m on 212. 1998 at Kancheepuram bus stand. According to the case of the respondents herein/claimants, after the bus had stopped in the said bus stand, all the passengers bound for Kancheepuram alighted and the deceased was the last man to get down from the bus and that while he was thus getting down, without ensuring his safe landing on the ground, the driver of the bus rashly and negligently moved the bus as a result of which the deceased Arumugam fell down and the rear side left wheel of the bus ran over him causing injuries leading to his death. 11. 11. Besides producing Ex.P1 - certified copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.1266/1998 registered on the file of B.1 Siva Kanchi Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, Ex.P2 -certified copy of the Postmortem certificate, Ex.P3 - certified copy of the motor vehicle inspectors report showing that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle and that the accident took place solely due to human error and Ex.P4 -final report submitted in the above said criminal case against the driver of the bus for alleged offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, the respondents herein/claimants have also examined one Annamalai (P.W.2) as the eye witness. P.W.1 is none other than the first respondent herein/first claimant. Though she might have stated that while her husband was alighting from the bus through the front entrance, the bus was moved suddenly as a result of which he got trapped under the rear side left wheel of the bus, she has admitted in her evidence that she was not an eye witness and she got the information only through other persons. But, P.W.2 in his evidence has categorically stated that while he was standing at the bus stand on 212. 1998 at about 4.00 or 4.30 a.m, he witnessed the occurrence and that it was he who took the deceased to the hospital with the help of two or three other persons. It is his further version that his employer had an account with UCO Bank, Kacheepuram; that the deceased was previously working in Kancheepuram branch of UCO Bank and hence he was familiar to him and that in the said acquaintance he knew the deceased and it was he who went to the house of the deceased and gave information. The said evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. 12. From Ex.P1 and Ex.P4, it is obvious that not only a case was registered by the police against the driver of the bus, but also, a charge-sheet was laid against him, after completion of investigation for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC. The driver of the bus involved in the accident has been examined as the sole witness on the side of the appellant herein. The driver of the bus involved in the accident has been examined as the sole witness on the side of the appellant herein. He would say that after he dropped the passengers bound for Kancheepuram at Kancheepuram bus stand and after he ensuring the same through the conductor, he moved the bus for about 15 feet; that till the deceased was sleeping in the bus and that thereafter he got awakened and rushed towards the front entrance without informing anybody that he was going to get down. It is his further statement that as the deceased having already lost his left upper limb was a handicapped person and that since he tried to get down from the moving the bus with such disability, he fell down and got injured in the said accident. R.W.1 would also state that it was he who gave the complaint to the police, but it is quite contra to the contents of Ex.P1. There is no corroboration for the interested testimony of R.W.1. On the other hand, whereas the respondents herein/claimants have produced documentary evidence in support of their case that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus involved in the accident, they have also examined an independent witness as P.W.2. Under such circumstances, this court finds no defect or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred, as the driver of the bus moved it while the deceased was getting down from the bus in the bus stand without ensuring his safe landing on the ground and that hence the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation. Therefore, there is no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and the same has got to be confirmed. .13. The respondents herein/claimants have stated in their claim petition that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of his death. It is also their case that the deceased was employed as a special assistant in UCO Bank. However, the respondents herein/claimants have not chosen to produce the birth certificate or the school certificate to prove the age of the deceased. It is also their case that the deceased was employed as a special assistant in UCO Bank. However, the respondents herein/claimants have not chosen to produce the birth certificate or the school certificate to prove the age of the deceased. On the other hand, they have produced a certificate obtained from the employer of the deceased showing the particulars found in his service register. as Ex.P6. It is obvious from Ex.P6 that as per the records maintained by UCO Bank, the employer of the deceased, he was born on 09.02.1949. Therefore, as on the date of death he had completed the age of 49 years and a couple of months was left to complete the age of 50. The Tribunal opined that the deceased was aged between 45 to 48 years. This was done based on the age noted in Ex.P2 - Postmortem certificate. Age noted in the postmortem certificate is only an approximate age. More reliable evidence is available in the form of Ex.P6 which shows that the deceased was aged 49 years. The Tribunal should not have opined that the deceased was aged between 45 to 48 years. Therefore the age of the deceased is fixed at 49 years. As the deceased had completed the age of 49 years and had not completed the age of 50, with the help of Schedule II, 12 can be selected as the appropriate multiplier instead of 13 selected by the Tribunal for assessing the damages for loss of benefit and dependency caused to the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. .14. The salary certificate issued by the employer has been marked as Ex.P7. As per Ex.P7, the monthly salary of the deceased for the month of November 1998 without deduction was Rs.13,036.25P. After deductions, the carry home salary was Rs.6,186.15P. Among the deductions, except subscription towards PF, towards union and flood, all other deductions were in the nature or repayment of the amount already received as advances. Therefore, the payment of a sum of Rs.1,310/- (Rs.310/-towards interest and the balance Rs.1,000/-towards principal) towards repayment of loan and interest, Rs.1,200/- towards cooperative loan, Rs.1,120/-towards festival advance and Rs.2,350/- towards housing loan repayment should also be added to the monthly income of the deceased. In all, a sum of Rs.5,670/-should have been added to the net salary of Rs.6,186.15P. Therefore, the payment of a sum of Rs.1,310/- (Rs.310/-towards interest and the balance Rs.1,000/-towards principal) towards repayment of loan and interest, Rs.1,200/- towards cooperative loan, Rs.1,120/-towards festival advance and Rs.2,350/- towards housing loan repayment should also be added to the monthly income of the deceased. In all, a sum of Rs.5,670/-should have been added to the net salary of Rs.6,186.15P. If the same is added, the total income of the deceased shall be reckoned as Rs.11,856.15P, which could be rounded to Rs.11,800/-. When the same is multiplied by 12, we get Rs.1,41,600/-representing the annual earnings. Out of the said amount, some amount should be deducted towards income tax liability. A sum of Rs.21,240/- (representing 15%) can be deducted towards income tax liability and the total income after deducting the income tax liability would be recorded as Rs.1,20,360/-. 15. Now it has been an established principle that 1/3rd shall be deducted towards expenses for the personal maintenance of the deceased that would have been incurred had he not died in the accident. Hence, after deducting 1/3rd amount (Rs.40,120/-), the annual loss of dependency caused to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants is to be taken as Rs.80,240/-. If it is multiplied by the selected multiplier 12, we can get Rs.9,62,880/-, which can be rounded to Rs.9,63,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-for loss of consortium to the first respondent and a further sum of Rs.45,000/- as loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs.15,000/-to each one of the respondents 2 to 4. This seems to be on a higher side. The same has got to be reduced by fixing a total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards mental agony at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to each one of the respondents has got to be disallowed. A sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded towards funeral expenses is quite reasonable and hence no revision in this regard is warranted. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of expectation of life. For loss of expectation of life of the deceased a sum of Rs.10,000/-can be awarded. Thus the total amount of compensation is fixed at Rs.10,03,000/-. At the cost of repetition, the split up particulars are given as below: Loss of benefit and dependency caused to the respondents 1 to 4 : Rs. For loss of expectation of life of the deceased a sum of Rs.10,000/-can be awarded. Thus the total amount of compensation is fixed at Rs.10,03,000/-. At the cost of repetition, the split up particulars are given as below: Loss of benefit and dependency caused to the respondents 1 to 4 : Rs. 9,63,000.00 Loss of consortium, love and Affection caused to the respondents 1 to 4 : Rs. 25,000.00 Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of expectation of life of the deceased and the mental agony caused to the respondents 1 to 4 : Rs. 10,000.00 TOTAL : Rs.10,03,000.00 16. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the total amount of compensation to which the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are entitled shall be fixed at Rs.10,03,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced to Rs.10,03,000/- from Rs.11,43,000/-. Taking into consideration the bank rate of interest during the relevant period, this court is of the view that the award of 9% interest shall be reasonable with proportionate amount. 17. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by Tribunal is reduced from Rs.11,43,000/- to Rs.10,03,000/-. The said amount shall be apportioned among the respondents 1 to 4/claimants as follows: a) 1st and 2nd Respondents - Rs.3,50,000/- each; b) 3rd and 4th respondents/3rd and 4th claimants - Rs.1,51,500/- each. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to payment cost in the civil miscellaneous appeal.