Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 09.10.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner submits that on 21.12.1996, at about 19.45 hours, when the deceased Neela Pillai was walking in mud portion of the road at Nallathur main road, near Ganesan land, the respondent Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN31 N 0389 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Neela Pillai, due to the said accident, he died on the spot. The petitioners are all depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. At the time of accident the deceased was a mason and was drawing Rs.5,000/-per month, at this point he was 29 years old at the time of accident. The accident had happened due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. As such, the respondents corporation bus is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and costs. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim petition. 4. The respondent has filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent denied that its driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Neela Pillai. The respondent submits that on 21.12.1996, the bus bearing registration No.TN31 N 0389, route No.4A was on its 7.20 p.m. scheduled trip, from Kallakurichi to Eduthavainatham. The driver of the bus drove the bus with due care and caution and at normal speed. He stopped the bus at Nallathur bus stop. Some passengers alighted from the bus and some passengers boarded into the bus at the bus stop. Then the driver drove the bus to Eduthavainatham. The driver did not cause any accident on 21.12.1996 as alleged in the claim petition. But, on its return trip, the bus was stopped by Kachirapalayam Police at the Police Station. Some passengers alighted from the bus and some passengers boarded into the bus at the bus stop. Then the driver drove the bus to Eduthavainatham. The driver did not cause any accident on 21.12.1996 as alleged in the claim petition. But, on its return trip, the bus was stopped by Kachirapalayam Police at the Police Station. Only then the driver came to know that one Vellaban has given a false complaint against the bus driver. The respondent specifically denies that the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN31 N 0389 dashed against Neela Pillai and caused any accident and he died in the accident. Since, there was no accident as such as alleged in the petition, the respondent corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition with costs. 5. The said accident was registered by Kachirapalayam Police Station in Crime No.543/1996 under Section 304 I.P.C. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed one issue for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the death of Neela Pillai in the road accident according to law? 7. On the petitioners side three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The first petitioner, Valli, wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. The PW1 in her evidence adduced that she is the first claimant, second claimant is the mother of the deceased and third and fourth claimants are the children of the deceased. Further she stated that on 21.12.1996, at about 07.45 p.m. the accident had happened. Her husband had walked on the mud road at that time when the respondents corporation bus had dashed against him, he sustained grievious injuries resulting in death on the spot. The said accident was registered by the Police. The FIR has been marked as Ex.P1. At the time of accident, the deceased was 29 years and employed as mason in construction works. In the cross-examination, the PW1 had not been a witness to the accident. But, some persons had witnessed the accident and informed about the same to her. As per Ex.P1, the FIR it reveals that on 21.12.1996 at about 9.45 p.m. the accident had happened. In the cross-examination, the PW1 had not been a witness to the accident. But, some persons had witnessed the accident and informed about the same to her. As per Ex.P1, the FIR it reveals that on 21.12.1996 at about 9.45 p.m. the accident had happened. One Vallaban gave a complaint to the Police regarding the said accident. The said complainant stated in his complaint that one Sudarsan, driver of the respondents corporation bus, who was the cause of the said accident. The offending vehicle bearing registration No.TN31 N 0389, route No.4, this was also mentioned in the said complaint. The complaint was registered by the Kachirapalayam Police Station. The complainant further stated that the respondents bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased at high speed. The same was witnessed by him. In the said accident the deceased sustained injuries on his head, nose, ear and right eye. Due to the great impact, he died on the spot. The driver of the bus took away the bus from the accident spot. On the strength of the evidence of the PW1 and complainants evidence PW2 and Ex.P1, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents corporation bus. 9. Post-mortem Certificate was marked as Ex.P2. As per Ex.P2, the deceaseds age was 29 years and he had died due to shock and hemorrage. Further, the Ex.P2 indicated that the deceased sustained injuries on his head and various parts of his body. PW2 is the eye-witness and he identified the deceased and he narrated the accident. On the side of the petitioner Ex.P3 School Certificate of the third claimant, Ex.P4-School Certificate of the fourth claimant, Ex.P5-Ration Card and Ex.P6-Motor Vehicles Report. On the basis of the Motor Accident Report, the offending vehicle had been driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner, the meter of the vehicle also indicating a speed of 68 Kmph. 10. Hence, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the first petitioners husband Neela Pillai had succumbed in the said accident. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant compensation to the claimant against the respondent transport corporation. 10. Hence, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the first petitioners husband Neela Pillai had succumbed in the said accident. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant compensation to the claimant against the respondent transport corporation. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided the compensation that at the time of the accident the deceaseds age was 29 years and his monthly income was Rs.1,500/- and adopted a multiplier of 18, after deducting 1/3rd share personal expenditure, the Tribunal awarded compensation a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- under the head of loss of income; Rs.15,000/-granted under the head of consortium, love and affection; Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the said amount into the Court. The said compensation amount had been apportioned equally among the four claimants ie.each receiving ¼ share, with proportionate interest thereon. 11. After such deposit being made by the Corporation all the claimants are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- each with the entire accrued interest. The rest of the amount to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.6,360/- as Advocate fees and Rs.600/-towards cost was awarded. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated in his appeal that without any evidence, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the respondent. Further, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/-per month without any evidence. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal at 18 is on the higher side. Hence, the appellant counsel prays to scale down the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the Tribunal has fixed the income, age and multiplier, all are reasonable and correct. As such, the Tribunal awarded the compensation under the head of loss of income. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-under the head of funeral expenses, consortium, love and affection are pertinent. There is no error in the said award passed by the Tribunal. 14. As such, the Tribunal awarded the compensation under the head of loss of income. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-under the head of funeral expenses, consortium, love and affection are pertinent. There is no error in the said award passed by the Tribunal. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, arguments advanced by the counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the award dated 09.10.2001, in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi is fair and equitable. For assessing the compensation the Tribunal carefully considered the documentary evidence and oral evidence, the Tribunal assessed the compensation amount on the basis of the age, occupation, income of the deceased and also dependency of the deceased. So, this Court confirms the award and decree dated 09.10.2001, in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi. 15. On 28.02.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.152 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of its order. 16. As the accident happened in the year 1996, it is open to the claimants to withdraw this apportioned compensation share amount with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of the dated 09.10.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deductions of the withdrawals if any and also subject to the third and fourth claimants becoming majors. 17. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 09.10.2001, in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, is confirmed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.