JUDGMENT :- Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- and directing the Claimants to approach the Civil Court for settling the inter-se dispute, Appellants - wife and minor children and mother of the deceased Selvaraj have preferred this Appeal. 2. The Appellants are the Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3846/95. The Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.4036/97 are another wife and children of the deceased Selvaraj. Before the Tribunal both the Claim petitions were taken up together and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-. In view of inter-se dispute between the parties, the Tribunal has directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their legal rights as legal heirs of the deceased Selvaraj and the Tribunal has directed deposit of compensation amount till the inter-se dispute between the parties are settled. 3. Back ground facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows:- On 011. 1995 - 11.00 A.M. the deceased Selvaraj was crossing from west to east direction in Anna Salai (ersetwhile Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation) presently State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) bus bearing registration No.TN-1-N 0317 came in a rash and negligent manner from south to north direction on the same road and dashed against the deceased Selvaraj and sustained fatal injuries. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of SETC bus driver, Appellants have filed Claim Petition U/s.166 M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,21,500/-. In M.C.O.P.No.4036/97 the Claimants claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. Opposing the Claim, SETC has filed counter denying the accident as alleged by the Claimants. According to SETC, the accident did not happened in SETC bus and therefore, SETC is not liable to pay any compensation towards the alleged accident. Without prejudice to its contentions, SETC also disputed the age, income of the deceased and loss of dependency of the Claimants. 5. Before the Tribunal, first Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.3846/95 was examined as P.W.1 and the first Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4036/97 was examined as P.W.3. S.I. of police who registered the case was examined as P.W.2. Eye witness was examined as P.W.4 and one Kanniappan was examined as P.W.5. Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked. The driver of SETC bus was examined as R.W.1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of SETC bus driver and held that SETC is liable to pay the compensation. 6. Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked. The driver of SETC bus was examined as R.W.1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of SETC bus driver and held that SETC is liable to pay the compensation. 6. At the time of accident the deceased was working as mason. The Tribunal had taken his monthly income as Rs.1,350/- and deducting Rs.450/-for personal expenses, Tribunal has calculated his contribution as Rs.900/-. Adopting multiplier 16, Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.1,72,000/-. Adding the conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-. 7. Challenging the quantum of compensation and also the direction of the Tribunal directing the parties to resolve the inter-se dispute between the rival Claimants in the Civil Court, the Claimants-Appellants have preferred this Appeal. 8. The learned counsel Mr. T.G. Balachandran, appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Selvaraj and while so, the Tribunal erred in directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. It was further submitted that the deceased was working as mason and he would have earned not less than Rs.100/- per day and the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side. 9. The learned counsel Ms. S. Geetha, appearing for SETC has submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same need not be enhanced. 10. When the Appeal came up for hearing, it was learnt that the other rival Claimants have filed O.S.No.6576 of 2004 to establish that they are the legal heirs. Since the accident is of the year 1995 and the rival Claimants are yet to receive fruits of the award, the Court has secured the presence of rival Claimants-Vijaya and her children. They were represented by their counsel Mr. M. Sarfudeen Ali Ahamed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival Claimants. 11. On 011. 1995 when the deceased crossing from west to east in Anna salai, SETC bus driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries. P.W.4 Anthony, an eye witness had clearly narrated about the accident. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival Claimants. 11. On 011. 1995 when the deceased crossing from west to east in Anna salai, SETC bus driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries. P.W.4 Anthony, an eye witness had clearly narrated about the accident. P.W.4 Anthony was also the complainant and FIR in Crime No.4394/95 of Traffic Investigation Wing, Thiruvallikeni U/s.304(A) IPC and Sec.134(a)(b) and 184 M.V.Act were registered against the driver of the bus. On the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P1 FIR, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The conclusion of the Tribunal as to the negligent driving of the SETC bus is unassailable. 12. The main objection of the Claimants is in respect of quantum of compensation and direction to approach the Civil Court to resolve the inter-se dispute. At the time of accident, the deceased Selvaraj was aged 33 years and he was working as mason. Ex.P.1 is the membership card issued by the Central Association, Tamil Nadu Masons in which it has been stated that the deceased Selvaraj was a member of the said association. 13. In her evidence, P.W.1 Govindammal has stated that her husband Selvaraj was working as mason and that he was getting daily income of Rs.100/- per day and that he used to contribute Rs.80/- for family expenses. P.W.3 Vijaya has also stated that the deceased was earning daily income of Rs.150/-, out of which he was giving Rs.125/-for family expenses. 14. Courts and Tribunals have a duty to award just compensation by adopting proper multiplicand and multiplier so as to augment the income. Compensation has to be awarded to the Claimants to compensate the loss of annual dependency sustained by the legal representatives due to the loss of deceased. Grant of just compensation would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and future prospects of the deceased. 15. At the time of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged 33 years. Working as mason, over the years the deceased would have earned more. While so, the monthly income of Rs.1,350/-taken by the Tribunal appears to be very much on the lower side. 15. At the time of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged 33 years. Working as mason, over the years the deceased would have earned more. While so, the monthly income of Rs.1,350/-taken by the Tribunal appears to be very much on the lower side. Having regard to the avocation of the deceased and that he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, in my considered view that he would have earned not less than Rs.100/- per day. In the Claim Petition the Claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500/-per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,400/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses i.e. Rs.800/-, the deceased would have contributed Rs.1,600/- per month and Rs.19,200/- per annum to the family. 16. The deceased was aged 33 years. As per Second Schedule to M.V. Act the multiplier applicable in the age group of 30-35 is 17. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier 16 as adopted by the Tribunal is taken as multiplier. Adopting multiplier 16, the total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.3,07,200/-. 17. For funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.5,000/-is awarded. The deceased had left at least six children and his mother. For loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is awarded (Rs.5000/-each). For loss of consortium an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded. 18. The total compensation amount of Rs.1,84,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,67,200/- as under:- 19. The next point falling for consideration is as to apportionment. Since there were rival Claimants, the Tribunal has directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights. The Claimant Vijaya and her children are said to have filed O.S.No.6576/2004 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same is said to be pending. Though, the accident was of the year 1995, the claimants had not received any amount. Though, Vijaya and her children are not made as parties in this Appeal, the Court has ensured the presence of rival Claimant Vijaya. She was present in the court along with her counsel. The Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3846/95 and M.C.O.P.No.4036/97 have filed compromise memo to the effect that modified award may be passed apportioning 50% to both the Claimants after excluding share of mother of the deceased Kannammal. She was present in the court along with her counsel. The Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3846/95 and M.C.O.P.No.4036/97 have filed compromise memo to the effect that modified award may be passed apportioning 50% to both the Claimants after excluding share of mother of the deceased Kannammal. The parties have agreed that after apportioning certain amount to the mother of the deceased the balance could be equally apportioned amongst two line. Claimant Vijaya had undertaken to withdraw the Suit O.S.No.6576/2004. 20. The enhanced compensation of Rs.3,67,200/-is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants as noted below:-Mother Kannammal... Rs. 27,200/- Claimants in O.P.3846/95 ... Rs.1,70,000/-... 1st Claimant Rs.65,000/- (Govindammal) ... Claimants 2 to 4 ... Rs.35,000/- (each) Claimants in O.P.4036/97 ... Rs.1,70,000/-... 1st Claimant (Vijaya) .. Nil Claimants (2 and 3) .. Rs.35,000/- (each) 4th Claimant .. Rs.1,00,000/- 21. In the result, The quantum of compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3846 of 1995 dated 09.02.2000 is enhanced to Rs.3,67,200/- and this C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount is to be apportioned amongst the Appellants-Claimants and Claimants in MCOP.No.4036/97 as stated in Para (20). The compensation amount of Rs.1,84,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,83,200/-is payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit. The Respondent shall deposit the entire compensation along with accrued interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the first Claimant in MCOP.No.3846/95 and other Claimants in MCOP.No.3846/95 who attained majority are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them. R. BANUMATHI.J The Claimants 2 to 4 in MCOP.No.4036/97 are also entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount payable to them along with accrued interest. If any of the Claimants continued to be minor, the compensation amount payable to them shall be invested in a nationalised bank till they attain majority. There is no order as to costs in this Appeal.