Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.01.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.1414 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,33,400/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division, Salem, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The deceased was occupied in weaving his own handloom, producing dhoties and sarees. As such, he was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/-per month. The petitioners submits that on 04.10.2000, at 09.00 p.m. when the deceased Jambulingam was walking on the extreme side of the road, near Soolaimedu, at that time, the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN27 N0767, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and dashed against the deceased Jambulingam. Immediately, the deceased Jambulingam rushed to the Salem Government Hospital for preliminary treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to RPS Hospital at Salem of further treatment on 05.10.2000. Further, the deceased Jambulingam was once again admitted in the Salem Government Hospital on 31.10.2000 and he expired in the hospital on 01.11.2000, since the treatment proved a failure. 4. The said accident case was registered by the Kondalampatti Police Station in Crime No.1208/2000 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The accident had happened due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the respondent Corporation bus. Hence, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum. 5. The respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month is not correct. The petitioners have not produced Legal Heirship Certificate to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The respondent denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The petitioners have not produced Legal Heirship Certificate to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The respondent denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The allegation that on 24.08.2001, at about 10.30 a.m. the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing registration No.TN27 N0969, near Pattukarai Railway bridge on the Thalaivasal main road, when the driver of the bus driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, running over a speed braker without slowing down, as intended by such speed brakers. As an affect, the deceased was thrown out from the bus and sustained fracture injuries and subsequently he expired in the hospital is deemed false. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the respondents driver the cause for accident? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as claimed by them? (iii)What are the other reliefs? 7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and two documents were marked as Exs.P1 and P2. On the respondents side one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1 in her evidence had adduced that she is the wife of the deceased. The second and third claimants are their minor sons. Her husband Mallan had died in the accident and hence the petitioners claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. One Senthil, who is the eye witness of the said accident, was examined as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence had adduced that he had seen the accident. Further, he adduced evidence that himself and the other co-passengers including the deceased Mallan had travelled in the respondents bus and when the bus was nearing the Railway Bridge, the driver of the bus suddenly applied the brakes and at that moment the deceased was thrown out from the bus and had fallen down on the ground. In the said accident, he sustained head injury and other bodily injuries. He was immediately rushed to the hospital, wherein he expired after one week, the treatment having proved a failure. The conductor of the bus one Subramanian was examined as RW1. In the said accident, he sustained head injury and other bodily injuries. He was immediately rushed to the hospital, wherein he expired after one week, the treatment having proved a failure. The conductor of the bus one Subramanian was examined as RW1. The RW1, in his evidence stating that he is working as a conductor in the respondents Corporation bus and on 24.08.2001 the bus bearing registration No.TN27 N0969 was on a scheduled trip at 10.45 a.m., the bus was proceeding towards Atthur through Thalaivasal and when the bus was nearing the Railway Gate with crowded passengers, due to a temple festival and when he asked the deceased to go to inside the bus, since, he was hanging on the hand rail and at that time the driver had driven the bus slowly, the deceased lost his control and fell down from the bus. As such, the accident had happened. 9. Considering the evidence of the PW1, PW2, RW1 and Ex.P1, the FIR, the Tribunal is of the view that the respondents evidence is not believable. The FIR registered against the driver of the bus, which shows that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 10. The PW1 further adduced evidence stating that the second and third petitioners are their sons, aged about 16 and 14 years old respectively and her age was 36 years old. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years old and employed as a Coolie at Sangoo Factory and was earning a sum of Rs.100/-per day. She further adduced evidence stating that her husband was travelling in the respondents bus when the driver of the bus applied sudden brake resulting that he got thrown off from the bus. Immediately, he was rushed to the hospital, wherein he expired after one week, the treatment having proved a failure. Hence, she claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation. Ex.P2-Post-mortem Certificate indicates the age of the deceased as 30 years. But, the PW1 stated in his evidence that the deceaseds age was 38 years. So, considering the evidence of the PW1, the Tribunal had decided the age of the deceased as 38 years and income at Rs.1,800/-per month. Hence, she claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation. Ex.P2-Post-mortem Certificate indicates the age of the deceased as 30 years. But, the PW1 stated in his evidence that the deceaseds age was 38 years. So, considering the evidence of the PW1, the Tribunal had decided the age of the deceased as 38 years and income at Rs.1,800/-per month. After deducing 1/3rd share of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs.2,30,400/-under the head of loss of income and a sum of Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,33,400/-as compensation to the petitioners, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 11. The Tribunal further directs the respondent to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,33,400/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. The said compensation amount had been apportioned as follows: 1. The first petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,400/-, 2. The second and third petitioners were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Tribunal has permitted the first petitioner to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/-from her apportioned share amount and the rest of the award amount of the petitioners should be deposited under a fixed deposit scheme at the Dena Bank, Salem Branch, for a period of three years. The first petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest from her share amount as well as the minor share amount, once in six months. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the same. 12. Challenging the award and decree, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem, praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the accident had happened due to the negligent of the deceased. The Tribunal had erroneously come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is also on the higher side. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal had erroneously come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is also on the higher side. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal had erroneously come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,800/-per month suo moto. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal as 16 is on the lower side. Since, the age of the deceased was 30 years as per Post-mortem Certificate. Further, the Tribunal had failed to award compensation under the head of consortium, love and affection. Further the Tribunal had also failed to award compensation under the head of transport and medical expenses. Since, the deceased was hospitalised for one week and the dead body brought to the home. Considering this point the compensation amount is on the lower side. Further, the learned counsel argued that the claimants are belonging to an agricultural Coolie family. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the quantum could not be scaled down and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that there is no discrepancy in the Award and Decree, dated 10.01.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.1414 of 2001, which is found to be fair and equitable one. Hence, this Court confirms the said award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Salem. 16. The entire compensation amount has been deposited by the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., as per the conditional order of this Court dated 01.04.2005, which is lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1414 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Salem. This Court permitted the first claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount together with proportionate interest and entire cost. Further, this Court directed the Tribunal to deposit the amount, awarded to the minors, into anyone of the nationalised bank proximate to the place of the residence of the first claimant for a period of three years initially and renewal thereafter till the disposal of the appeal. 17. Further, this Court directed the Tribunal to deposit the amount, awarded to the minors, into anyone of the nationalised bank proximate to the place of the residence of the first claimant for a period of three years initially and renewal thereafter till the disposal of the appeal. 17. As the accident had happened in the year 2000, 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.1414 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Salem, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals if already made, as per this Court Order. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 10.01.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.1414 of 2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Salem, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.