Judgment The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 08.01.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,90,500/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of the compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem, has filed the above appeal to set aside the award and decree. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Gurunathan was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. He was a hale and healthy and doing all sorts of his routine work. At the time of accident, he was studying in Government ITI, doing whole sale vegetable business and earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month. The entire income was contributed to his parents and his elder brother. 4. On 010. 2006, the deceased Gurunathan travelled in a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN27 M8670 as a pillion rider and the said motorcycle was ridden by its rider on the Sankari-Salem main road, on the extreme left side of the road and following all traffic rules and regulations. At about 15.15 hrs, when the rider was proceeding near Kalipatty branch road, a TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN27 N1631, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and with great speed, came from the opposite direction and hit against the motorcycle and so caused the accident. 5. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and sustained grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body and died on the spot itself. The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. 6. In connection with the accident, the Sankari Police Station registered a case as Crime No.1034/2006, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. against the driver of the TNSTC Bus. 7. The first and second petitioners are the parents of the deceased Gurunathan and the third petitioner is the elder brother of the deceased. 6. In connection with the accident, the Sankari Police Station registered a case as Crime No.1034/2006, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. against the driver of the TNSTC Bus. 7. The first and second petitioners are the parents of the deceased Gurunathan and the third petitioner is the elder brother of the deceased. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Gurunathan from the respondent Transport Corporation with interest and costs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, r/w Rule 3 of TNMACT Rules. 8. The respondent in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the rider of the said motorcycle had driven the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident. Further, the age, occupation and income of the deceased were denied. The petitioners have also not produced any medical bills to authenticate their claim. Further, the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim is false and also the claim made in the petition is excessive and so has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: .(i) Was the accident caused by the negligent act and rash driving of the driver of the respondents bus? .(ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioners are entitled to get? 10. On the petitioners side two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 were examined and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. The Tribunal scrutinised the averments in the petition and Counter Affidavit regarding the manner of the accident. .11. On the petitioners side, one Mathesh, an eyewitness of the accident was examined as PW2. In his evidence, he has adduced that on 010. 2006, at about 3.00 p.m. he had come back from Tharrippattarai and taking Tea at a teashop, situated on the Kalipatti branch road, and left off Salem main road, and looking out on the Sankari main road. At about 3.15 p.m. he had seen the TVS Suzuki motorcycle, ridden by a person from his Village, one Selvam and also its pillion rider one Gurunathan, on the Salem Road, on the extreme left and proceeding towards Salem. At about 3.15 p.m. he had seen the TVS Suzuki motorcycle, ridden by a person from his Village, one Selvam and also its pillion rider one Gurunathan, on the Salem Road, on the extreme left and proceeding towards Salem. At that time, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN27 N1631, driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and proceeding towards Edapadi Branch road, suddenly without turning the bus to the left for proceeding on the Edapadi branch road, turned it on the right and hit against the motorcycle, as a result of which both the riders of the motorcycle were thrown out and the said Gurunathan, died on the spot itself. On cross-examination, PW2 has denied that he is related to the deceased and also denied the allegation of the respondents that he was not an eyewitness of the accident. 12. The respondents bus conductor, was examined as RW1 and in his evidence, he has stated that the said bus was driven in a careful manner by its driver; that the rider of the motorcycle had ridden the motorcycle in a rash manner and had not seen the bus entering into the four roads and had dashed the motorcycle against the bus and so had invited the accident. As such, the bus driver was not responsible for the accident. On cross examining the conductor and on being questioned as to how many days the driver of the bus had been placed on suspension, the conductor of the bus replied in the negative. Further, on cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the registration number of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Further, no reasons will given on the respondents side for not examining the driver of the bus in the present case. Further, no documentary evidence was produced on the respondents side to show the action that the respondent had taken against the bus driver. If the manner of the accident as narrated by the respondent had been true, the driver of the said bus could have at least come forward as a witness and adduced evidence before the Tribunal. Further, no documentary evidence was produced on the respondents side to show the action that the respondent had taken against the bus driver. If the manner of the accident as narrated by the respondent had been true, the driver of the said bus could have at least come forward as a witness and adduced evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal then scrutinised the Ex.P1 FIR regarding the place, time and manner of the accident and had also found that a criminal case has been registered as against the driver of the said bus under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. So, the Tribunal on considering the evidence of PW2 and on perusal of the contents of FIR marked as Ex.P1, concluded that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and so held the respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. .13. It is evident, after scrutiny of the Ex.P2 Post-mortem Report of the deceased, that the age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of the accident. Ex.P3 -Death Certificate of the deceased. PW1, the mother of the deceased, had adduced evidence that prior to the accident, her son was a student in ITI and marked Ex.P4 -10th Standard Mark Sheet of the deceased. From a scrutiny of the Ex.P5, it is seen that the deceased was undergoing an Electrician Course at Government ITI, at the time of the accident. As such, the Tribunal considered that if the deceased had been alive, he had good prospects of earning in the future. Considering that the deceased was unmarried and considering the age of his mother as 42 years, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 for assessing compensation. 14. On scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and on consideration of Exs.P5 and P6, the Tribunal held that the deceased had good prospects of earning a decent sum in the future. The Tribunal therefore, held that the deceased could have earned a salary of Rs.3,900/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd share of this for his personal expenses, the Tribunal fixed his contribution to his family, in the future, as a sum of Rs.2,600/-per month. Adopting the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal assessed loss of income to the petitioner as Rs.2,600/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.4,68,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd share of this for his personal expenses, the Tribunal fixed his contribution to his family, in the future, as a sum of Rs.2,600/-per month. Adopting the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal assessed loss of income to the petitioner as Rs.2,600/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.4,68,000/-. For transport and funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted to the petitioners for loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,90,500/- to the petitioners and apportioned a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the second petitioner, mother of the deceased and apportioned Rs.95,250/- each to the first petitioner and third petitioner, the father and brother of the deceased respectively. 15. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, within a period of two months from the date of its Order and further directed that the apportioned share of the petitioners had to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks at Salem and the petitioners were permitted to receive interest on such deposits, once in three months, directly from the Bank. The Court fee for the award has to be paid by the petitioners within ten days from the date of its Order. The Advocate fees was to be fixed as per rules and regulations of the Court. .16. The learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal has contended that the Tribunal had failed to consider that the motorcycle had been driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner. Further, considering the age of the deceased was only 20 years, the Tribunal, had wrongly fixed the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,900/- per month, without any proof. Further, the Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant did not produce any legal heir certificate to show their entitlement in getting compensation. As such, the grant of Rs.4,90,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and so the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting aside the award and decree. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Tribunal grant of Rs.2,500/-for funeral expenses is on the lower side. As such, the grant of Rs.4,90,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and so the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting aside the award and decree. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Tribunal grant of Rs.2,500/-for funeral expenses is on the lower side. The deceased was an ITI Student. The Tribunal, fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,600/- per month after deducting personal expenses and so it is justified, considering that the year of the accident was 2006. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the award granted by the Tribunal has been well considered. 18. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence given by both sides, arguments advanced by the learned counsels for their respective parties, the Court is of the view that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was a student undergoing a Technical Course in Government ITI and that after doing his course, he had good prospects of earning and extending support to his family. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier as 15 on the basis of the age of the mother and income of the deceased to assess compensation and this Court confirms the assessment of compensation based on this, as correct. As such, the award of the Tribunal of Rs.4,68,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/-for all the claimants for loss of love and affection is correct and so this Court confirms the award under these heads. The loss of a 20 years old ITI Student, is a great loss to the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, as they lost their son in the prime of his life. As such, the Court, confirms the award passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006. The rate of interest of 7.5% per annum is also justified considering the year of the passing the award. In total, the award passed by the Tribunal is fair and equitable. .19. As such, the Court, confirms the award passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006. The rate of interest of 7.5% per annum is also justified considering the year of the passing the award. In total, the award passed by the Tribunal is fair and equitable. .19. This Court hereby directs the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount, a sum of Rs.4,90,500/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of the compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, subject to the deduction of earlier deposit amount of compensation. 20. It is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount as per the Tribunal Order, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 21. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2006, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.