Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the Award and Decree, dated 24.08.2001, made in M.A.C.T.No.399 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Trivellore, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing this petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellants/petitioners have filed the above appeal praying for enhanced compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The (deceased) Anbazhagan was an employee of the respondents Corporation and was employed as a Conductor and earning a sum of Rs.6,413/- per month. On 01.04.1999, at about 1.45 in the afternoon, while the (deceased) Anbazhagan, in the course of his employment under the respondent was travelling in the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0314 as the Conductor in the said bus and when the bus was proceeding from Periyapalayam to Ponneri and was nearing Lakshminarayanan Temple near Arni, the driver of the said bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus against a house on the right side of the road. In the impact, the bus rolled over and the left side body of the bus dashed against the road. Due to this, the conductor of the bus ie.(deceased) Anbazhagan was trapped under the body of the bus and died on the spot. The accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the respondents bus by its driver. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation, from the respondent under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of the MACT Rules and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Regarding the accident, a criminal case has been registered in the Arni Police Station in Crime No.45 of 1999. 5. 4. Regarding the accident, a criminal case has been registered in the Arni Police Station in Crime No.45 of 1999. 5. The respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram, in its Counter has resisted the claim stating that on 01.04.1999, the driver started his trip at 01.30 p.m. on the said bus from Periyapalayam and was proceeding towards Ponneri. When the bus was proceeding between Arni and Kesavapuram, due to machine fault, the driver of the bus was unable to control the vehicle and hence the bus travelled on the right side of the road. In spite of the brake pplied by the driver of the bus, the bus could not be stopped and it was capsized after dashed against the sunshade of the house. Due to the impact, the conductor (deceased herein) and another had died and some of the passengers including the driver were injured. As such, the accident happened only due to machine fault in the said bus and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said bus. Hence, the respondent had submitted that no liability can be fixed on the respondent Corporation. 6. Further, the respondent had also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also stated that the claim was excessive. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondents bus? (ii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which they are entitled to get? 8. The petitioner in O.P.No.225 of 1999, one Amebushanam, who was also grievously injured in the said accident, was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. The PW1, in his evidence has deposed that when the said bus was nearing Lakshminarayanan Temple near Arni, the driver of the said bus had driven the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus against a house and that as a result, the bus had overturned. In support of his evidence, six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. In support of his evidence, six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR; Ex.P2 is the copy of Charge Sheet; Ex.P3 is the Rough Sketch; Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report of the said bus; Ex.P5 is the copy of the Accident Register and Ex.P6 is the Wound Certificate. From a scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the driver of the said bus has been shown as the guilty person in the said accident. On examination of the Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P3, it is seen that the bus had diverged from its path on the road and shifted to the right side and had dashed against the house on the right side of the road. On a scrutiny of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report marked as Ex.P4, it is seen that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical faults in the said bus. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has opined that the damages caused to the bus had been the result of the accident. The driver of the said bus, Kalidasan, was examined as RW1. The RW1 in his evidence has deposed that due to the breaking of the axle connecting the tyres the accident was caused. But, the Tribunal on considering that no certification regarding the fitness of the vehicle was produced as proof in support of the respondents contention and holding that there was no mechanical faults in the said bus as per the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report marked as Ex.P4 held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondents bus and hence held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 9. From a scrutiny of the Ex.P7, the Post-mortem Report of the (deceased) Anbazhagan and Ex.P1, the FIR, it is seen that the deceased had died in the accident while he was working as a conductor in the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0314 and during the course of his employment under the respondent bus Corporation. It is seen from the post-mortem and from the claim of the petitioners that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of the Transfer Certificate issued by School, wherein the deceased had studied marked as Ex.P9, it is evident that the date of birth of the (deceased) Anbazhagan was 10.05.1957. It is seen from the post-mortem and from the claim of the petitioners that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of the Transfer Certificate issued by School, wherein the deceased had studied marked as Ex.P9, it is evident that the date of birth of the (deceased) Anbazhagan was 10.05.1957. On scrutiny of the Ex.P13, the Salary Certificate of the deceased, it is seen that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.6,180/-. As such, the Tribunal deducing Rs.2,180/-as the personal expenses of the deceased held that he could have contributed Rs.4,000/-to his family. Adopting a multiplier of 15, as was relevant to the age of the deceased as per Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal assessed the total loss of income to the petitioners as Rs.4,000/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.7,20,000/-. As such, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,20,000/-as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further granted an award of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the first petitioner, under the head of loss of consortium. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased as was established on scrutiny of Ex.P10, the Legal Heir Certificate. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second petitioner is the son of the deceased, the third petitioner is the daughter of the deceased and the fourth and fifth petitioners are the mother and father of the deceased respectively. 10. The Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the above said award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.A.C.T.No.399 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Trivellore, within a period of one month from the date of its Order. The Tribunal, further apportioned a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.2,00,000/- each to the second and third petitioners; Rs.60,000/-to the fourth petitioner and Rs.40,000/-to the fifth petitioner. It was directed that the deposit was made by the respondent, the apportioned share amount of the petitioners was to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years. It was directed that the deposit was made by the respondent, the apportioned share amount of the petitioners was to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years. The apportioned share of the minors second and third petitioners was to be deposited in a nationalised bank till they attain the age of major. The excess Court fees paid by the petitioners was to be refunded to them. The respondent was directed to pay the costs of Rs.25,625.50 to the petitioners. The Senior Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.14,250/-and the Junior Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.4,750/-. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in his appeal has contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a very low sum of Rs.7,25,000/-as compensation as against a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- claimed in the petition. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,180/-as the Tribunal failed to take into account the possibilities of the deceased getting a higher salary, by way of promotion in the near future and also by way of pay revision. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has therefore contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.5,000/-for loss of consortium, after having found that the first appellant lost her companion at the prime age. Further, it was pointed out that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the sum of Rs.25,000/-each to the 2nd to 4th appellants herein for loss of love and affection. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal had erred in not granting any award under the head of loss of expectation of life and for loss to the estate of the deceased and that the Tribunal should have awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As such, it was prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has cited a case law in Sarla Verma & Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal - Quantum -Whether the future prospects can be taken into account for determining the income of the deceased? If so, whether pay revisions that occurred during the pendency of the claim proceedings or appeals therefrom should be taken into account "Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation". In view of imponderables and uncertainities, are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently argued that the Tribunal calculated the loss of income after adopting proper multiplier on the basis of income, age of the deceased and dependancy of the petitioners. It was also pointed out that there is no promotional possibilities for a conductor and that only a pay increase could have been given to the deceased in the future course of his employment and as such the Tribunals assessment of compensation based on his present salary is equitable and fair. The Tribunals award of Rs.7,25,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is on the higher side. As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable. 13. The Tribunals award of Rs.7,25,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is on the higher side. As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and citation submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in case law in Sarla Verma & Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, wherein it was stated that the future salary of a deceased,who had a permanent job and was in the age between 40 and 50 years should be taken as his actual salary at the time of death in addition to a 30% increase in this salary. This Court is of the view that the deceased was a conductor and there is no possibilities for promotion in his job, but it is an admitted fact that his salary would have been increased in future. This Court also view that parallelly, the cost of living index would also increase in the course of time. As such, this Court opines that both the above said increase would have a balancing effect on one another. So, in the instant case, the citation referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is not squarely applicable. This Court, after a careful scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal on various issues is of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal based on its findings are just and fair and as such, this Court confirms the Award and Decree, dated 24.08.2001, made in M.A.C.T.No.399 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Trivellore, as it is found to be fair and equitable. The rate of interest of 9% per annum fixed by the Tribunal is also confirmed by this Court, considering that the year of accident was 2001. 14. As the accident happened in the year 1999, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their respective apportioned share amount with accrued interest and cost, lying in the credit of the M.A.C.T.No.399 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Trivellore, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to the condition that no withdrawals had been made by the claimants and further subject to the condition that the second and third claimants have become majors. 15. 15. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with the above observation and consequently the Award and Decree, dated 24.08.2001, in M.A.C.T.No.399 of 1999, passed by the Sub-Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trivellore, is confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.