Judgment This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the respondents against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1405 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Tindivanam, dated 20.10.2003, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,62,000/-with interest at 9% from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. .2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed the above appeal, praying to set aside the Order of the award. .3. The short facts of the case are as follows:- .The deceased Kuppusamy was working as a Clerk in Tindivanam Municipality Office, Tindivanam. He was earning Rs.5,000/-per month and he was the sole earning member of his family. The petitioners are his legal heirs and the dependants. On 05.07.2001, at about 22.45 hours, when the deceased was returning to his home, and walking in the extreme left side of the GST Road and when he was near the NBC Petrol Bunk on that road, a Government Express Bus bearing registration No.TN 01/6564 belonging to the respondent herein and the driver in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and with high speed, hit the deceased, and caused his death. Hence, the petitioners, holding that the accident had been caused by the driver of the respondent had claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-from the respondent. The petitioners have also stated that the deceased was their sole breadwinner and that they have no other source of income. 4. The Tindivanam Police Station had registered a criminal case of the accident as Crime No.713/2001, under Section 304(a) I.P.C. 5. The respondent/State Express Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu Ltd., Chennai-2, in its Counter had resisted the claim stating that the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are not admitted. Further, the manner of accident, as alleged in the claim, was not admitted. The respondent has submitted that on 05.07.2001, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN01/6564, on Route 169A was proceeding from Chennai to Ervadi. When the bus was nearing Tindivanam, at about 22.45 hours, a cyclist travelling northern side suddenly cross the G.S.T. Road from West to East in front of the bus. In spite of the driver of the bus applying brakes to stop the bus, the cyclist dashed on the right side of the bus and sustained blood injuries. Subsequently, the cyclist had dead. In spite of the driver of the bus applying brakes to stop the bus, the cyclist dashed on the right side of the bus and sustained blood injuries. Subsequently, the cyclist had dead. The driver of the bus had informed about the accident to the Depot as well as the Police. As such, the accident had occurred only due to the ignorance of the of the deceased cyclist and was not due to rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus. Further, the claim of the petitioners is exorbitant and excessive. As such, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: .(i) Whether the said accident has been caused by the negligence of the Bus Driver of the respondent? .(ii) Is the respondent/Corporation liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners? (iii) What is the quantum of the compensation, which the petitioners are entitled to get? 7. On the petitioners side, only two witnesses were examined, namely the first petitioner, who was examined as PW1 and the sixth petitioner, who was examined as PW2. Further, three documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3. On the respondents side, Balan, the driver of the bus, which was involved in the accident, bearing registration No.TN01-6564 was examined as RW1. No documents were marked on the respondents side. 8. Further, RW1, in his evidence, had submitted that on 05.07.2001, when he was driving the bus, bearing registration No.TN01-6564, Route 169, from Chennai to Erwadi; and when the bus was near NTC Petrol Bunk on the Chennai-Trichy National Highway and when the bus was proceeding from North to South; a cyclist had suddenly cross the road from West to East and in spite of the driver sounding horn and taking the bus on the right side of the road, he was not able to prevent the accident. As such, the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the cyclist. On cross-examination, RW1 has admitted that a criminal case has been filed against him in the said accident and further admitted that the copy of the Judgment made in the above criminal case has not been produced before this Court. .9. As such, the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the cyclist. On cross-examination, RW1 has admitted that a criminal case has been filed against him in the said accident and further admitted that the copy of the Judgment made in the above criminal case has not been produced before this Court. .9. PW1 in her evidence had submitted that she was not an eyewitness of the accident and that only her son, sixth petitioner, Karunakaran, who had informed her of the accident. Further, PW1 had stated that on 05.07.2001 at about 10 P.M., when her husband was walking towards the petrol bunk at Udayam Nagar on the Chennai-Trichy National Highway, the bus had dashed against her husband from behind and due to the injuries sustained by her husband in the accident, he had died. As such, she held that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the bus driver and not due to any negligence on the part of her deceased husband. 10. On examination of Ex.P1, the copy of the FIR registered by the Tindivanam Police, it was found that the complainant was the sixth petitioner, Karunakaran and the respondent was the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN01/6564. It was further found that the evidence given by PW1 was in consonance with that stated in the F.I.R. Further, on scrutiny on Exs.P1 and P2, which are the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report pertaining to the said Bus and on scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the PW1 and RW1, it was established by the Tribunal, that the accident was caused only by the negligence of the driver of the bus, bearing registration No.TN01-6564 and as such the Tribunal held that the respondent/State Transport Express Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 11. Further, the first petitioner, is the first wife of the deceased and the second petitioner is the second wife of the deceased and the petitioners 3rd to 6th are the sons born to the deceased and the first petitioner. On examination of the petition, it has been stated that the age of the deceased at the time of death was 60 years and that he was a Clerk, employed in the Municipal Office, there has been no documentary evidence, like Educational qualification, Birth Certificate, advanced by the petitioners side. On examination of the petition, it has been stated that the age of the deceased at the time of death was 60 years and that he was a Clerk, employed in the Municipal Office, there has been no documentary evidence, like Educational qualification, Birth Certificate, advanced by the petitioners side. On examination of Ex.P3, the copy of the Post Mortum Certificate of the deceased, it has been certified that the age of the deceased was 59 years and accordingly the Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 59 years. On the examination of Ex.P4, the Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation on 310. 2000, it was established that the deceased had retired from service of the Municipality, about 6 to 7 months before the time of the accident and that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.4,416/-after his retirement. Even though the deceased had died, the pension would still be received by the petitioners as family pension. As such, the Tribunal held that the petitioners would not be affected very much, monetarily, by the death of the deceased. .12. Further, it was stated in the petition and in the evidence that the deceased was working as a Watchman as per exhibit marked as P4. The Tribunal, on considering the age of the deceased as 59 years, adopted a multiplier of 8, as per Sec.163 (A) Rule 2 of Motor Vehicles Act. There has been no documentary evidence to establish how much pension the deceased had received every month after his retirement. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided that the average salary earned by the deceased could be taken as Rs.2,500/- P.M. which was made on the basis of the legal ruling of the Judgment of Madras High Court made in 2001 – CTC Page No.219. As such, they took the annual income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- and deducted 1/3rd of this ie.Rs.10,000/- for personal expenses of the deceased and took the balance of Rs.20,000/- as loss of income for petitioners. Applying the multiplier of 8, they assessed loss of dependancy as Rs.1,60,000/-. For funeral expenses, an award of Rs.2,000/- was granted. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to Petitioners 1, 3 to 6 for loss of love and affection. As such, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,62,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. For funeral expenses, an award of Rs.2,000/- was granted. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to Petitioners 1, 3 to 6 for loss of love and affection. As such, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,62,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. Further, the second petitioner was held not entitled to receive any. Compensation and as such the claim made by her in the petition was dismissed. Further, the Tribunal apportioned Rs.1,22,000/- out of the said award to the first petitioner and Rs.35,000/- each to the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th petitioners. As such, the petition was allowed with costs. Further, it directed the respondent to pay the above said award with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, it directed that 50% of the award amount should be deposited in a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and permitted the petitioners to withdraw the interest on such deposit once in six months, and also permitted the petitioners to receive the other half of the award after the period of appeal. Further, the petitioners were instructed to deposit the balance Court fee on the award amount granted and fixed the Advocate Fees as Rs.8,200/-. Excess Court fee, if any, paid by the petitioners was to be returned. .13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his appeal has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition since the deceased was solely responsible for the accident as he negligently crossed the road in his cycle unmindful of the vehicles coming on the highway and courted the accident. The Tribunal should atleast have held that the deceased had equally contributed to the accident by his negligent act of suddenly crossing the main road. The Tribunal, after having held that the deceased had retired from service and the family will be getting family pension and that there was no substantial loss of income, erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at the excessive rate of Rs.2500/-. Further, the award of Rs.2,62,000/- granted by the Tribunal under various heads is highly excessive, especially considering the fact that the deceased was a man aged about 60 years and had retired from service. 14. Further, the award of Rs.2,62,000/- granted by the Tribunal under various heads is highly excessive, especially considering the fact that the deceased was a man aged about 60 years and had retired from service. 14. This Court, after a careful scrutiny of the Tribunal Order and the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of the view that the Tribunals assessment that a salary of Rs.2,500/- would have been earned by the deceased after his retirement is a reasonable one. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that as the petitioners were getting a family pension, the excessive notional salary fixed by the Tribunal as income of the deceased was erroneous. But, this Court, after considering that there was no documentary evidence regarding how much family pension the claimants were getting, could not hold this point as against the claimants and refix the notional income of the deceased, especially, after considering the fact that he was working as a watchman at the time of accident. Hence, this Court confirms the award of Rs.1,60,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency. However, the Court is of the view that an award of Rs.20,000/-granted to each of the petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 is on the higher, especially considering the fact that they are all majors and can shoulder responsibility on their own and also considering that the age of the deceased was 60. 15. As such, this Court modifies the award granted under the head of loss of love and affection to Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The award of Rs.2,000/-granted by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is confirmed. In total, this Court modifies the award granted by the Tribunal from Rs.2,62,000/- to Rs.2,12,000/-. In the result, the first petitioners share of the modified award amount will be Rs.1,12,000/- and the petitioners 3, 4, 5 and 6 share of modified award will be Rs.25,000/- each. 16. In case, the appellant/State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., has deposited the entire award amount of Rs.2,62,000/-with accrued interest, this Court permits the appellant Corporation to receive the balance of Rs.50,000/-with accrued interest after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. .17. 16. In case, the appellant/State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., has deposited the entire award amount of Rs.2,62,000/-with accrued interest, this Court permits the appellant Corporation to receive the balance of Rs.50,000/-with accrued interest after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. .17. The claimants are at liberty to receive their balance share of apportioned amount, after such deposit has been made by the appellant, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1405 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Ordinate Judge) at Tindivanam after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. The petitioners are permitted to receive the excess Court fees paid by them on the award amount. 18. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and resultantly the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dated 20.10.2003, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.1405 of 2001 is modified. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.