Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 19.12.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam-Division II) Ltd., Trichy-1, 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) Malaiyandi was working as a Supervisor, aged about 55 years and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of accident. On 26.07.1996, at about 18.00 hours, when the (deceased) Malaiyandi was walking on the left side of the mud road in G.S.T.Road at Jakkampettai Village, from north to south, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN45 N0930, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Malaiyandi, who died on the spot itself. As the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondents bus, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners, who are the daughters of the deceased, have claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest and costs from the respondent under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at Mailam Police Station in Crime No.455/1996, as against the driver of the bus, under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. 5. The respondent, in his counter statement, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the said accident. It has been stated that on 26.07.1996, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN45 N0930 proceeding from Trichy to Madras, was not involved in any accident, as alleged in the claim at Jakkampettai Village on G.S.T.Road. The respondent, in his counter statement, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the said accident. It has been stated that on 26.07.1996, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN45 N0930 proceeding from Trichy to Madras, was not involved in any accident, as alleged in the claim at Jakkampettai Village on G.S.T.Road. It has been pointed out that in the original FIR, it has been stated that the body of the deceased, whose age and address were not known was lying on the middle of the road and that he had died due to a hit and run accident at 18.00 hours and that the accident had been caused by an unknown vehicle. It has been submitted that in the G.S.T.Road, there would be heavy traffic throughout day and night. Hence, the respondent has stated that the driver of the respondents vehicle was not responsible for the said accident. 6. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim that the petitioners are the daughters of the deceased and depending on the income of the deceased. It has also been stated that in the FIR registered at the Police Station, the time of the accident has been mentioned as 6.00 p.m. whereas the respondents bus crossed the place of accident only 07.00 p.m. As such, the respondent has sought dismissal of the claim petition with costs. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whose negligence had been the cause for the accident? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioners are entitled to get? 8. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 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. 9. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, the copy of FIR, registered at Mailam Police Station, it is seen that the accident had been caused by an unknown vehicle and that the police had registered the complaint on coming to know that an unidentified man was lying dead in the middle of the road and that he had been hit by a vehicle proceeding on that road. It is seen that the complaint regarding the said accident had been given by one Murthy, the Jakkampettai Village Officer. It is seen that the complaint regarding the said accident had been given by one Murthy, the Jakkampettai Village Officer. On the petitioners side, a letter sent by the respondent to the Assistant Inspector of Mailam Police Station on 06.08.1996 has been marked as Ex.P4. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the respondent had stated that he was unable to produce the bus bearing registration No.TN45 N0930, involved in the said accident at Jakkampettai, due to the absence from work of the driver and conductor of the bus and has further stated that the bus would be produced within a period of two days. The Tribunal were of the opinion that if the respondents bus had not been involved in the said accident, there would have been no necessity for the respondent to send a letter. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, wherein it has been stated that the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN45 N0930 was involved in the said accident and that one person had died in the said accident. The driver of the respondents bus involved in the said accident, was examined as RW1. The RW1 in his evidence deposed that he had taken the trip at 03.45 p.m. and had driven the bus from Chennai to Trichy and that the bus was not involved in any accident. But, during the cross-examination he stated that he had been asked by the Mailam Police to bring the bus to the Police Station and that subsequently the Motor Vehicle Inspector had carried out an inspection of the bus; that he had been arrested and released on bail; that the management of the respondent bus Corporation had queried him regarding the accident. As such, the Tribunal was disinclined to accept the contention of the respondent that the respondents bus was not involved in the said accident and so had not caused the death of the said Malaiyandi. As such, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents bus and held the respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 10. The petitioners are the daughters of the deceased. It has been stated in their claim petition that the deceased Malaiyandi was aged about 55 years at the time of his death. 10. The petitioners are the daughters of the deceased. It has been stated in their claim petition that the deceased Malaiyandi was aged about 55 years at the time of his death. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Post-mortem Report, it is seen that the age of the deceased Malaiyandi has been stated as 55 years. It has been further stated by the petitioners that the deceased Malaiyandi had been employed as a Supervisor in a Fireworks Company in Mailam and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month. In support of this evidence, the petitioners had marked Ex.P3, the Salary Certificate of the deceased. It has been employed as the Manager of the said firm for the past 15 years and that his monthly salary had been Rs.4,000/- per month. 11. Prior to the death of the said Malaiyandi, his elder daughter ie. the first petitioner in the claim petition had married. It is seen that at the time of the said accident, the second and third petitioners were unmarried and had remained with him. It is also seen that the mother of the deceased Malaiyandi had preceded him in death. 12. The Tribunal, on considering that the salary of the deceased Malaiyandi was Rs.4,000/- per month and holding that he would have spent half of his salary towards his personal expenses held that he would have contributed a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month to the petitioners. Adopting a multiplier of 8 as was relevant to the age of the deceased ie.55 years, at the time of accident and as was relevant under the second schedule of Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the petitioners as Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 8 = Rs.1,92,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the above said award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, within a period of 30 days from the date of its Order. The Tribunal further apportioned Rs.42,000/- from and out of the award amount to the first petitioner and Rs.75,000/-each to the second and third petitioners. The Tribunal further apportioned Rs.42,000/- from and out of the award amount to the first petitioner and Rs.75,000/-each to the second and third petitioners. Further, after such deposit was made into the Court, the first petitioner was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.21,000/-of her apportioned share of award amount and the second and third petitioners were permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.37,500/-each of their apportioned share of award, immediately. The balance amount of the apportioned share of award amount of the first, second and third petitioners was to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit, for a period of three years and the petitioners were permitted to withdraw interest on their deposit, once in three months, directly from the bank. The excess Court fee of Rs.80/- paid by the petitioners was to be refunded to them. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.3,000/- and the respondent was directed to pay the cost of Rs.4,248.50 to the petitioners. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants bus was involved in the impugned accident and that their driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the impugned accident. It has been also been contended that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the fact that in the FIR that had been marked as Ex.p1, it was mentioned that an unknown dead body was lying at the middle of the road due to hit and run by an unknown vehicle has been contended that in the GST road, there would have been heavy flow of vehicles and as such the fixation of the appellants bus in the impugned accident without any clinching evidence is unsustainable. 15. It has been contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the appellants vehicle in the impugned accident solely based upon the summoning of the vehicle by the Police authorities. The impugned accident allegedly occurred on 26.07.1996 and the letter was sent by the Police authorities on 07.08.1996, calling upon the appellant to produce the vehicle, the records and the driver. Thus, the Tribunal ought not to have given much importance to the summoning of the appellants vehicle by the Police Authority. 16. It has been contended that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of the appellants driver, who was examined as RW1. Thus, the Tribunal ought not to have given much importance to the summoning of the appellants vehicle by the Police Authority. 16. It has been contended that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of the appellants driver, who was examined as RW1. It has also been contended that as the claimants 1 and 2 are married and living with their husbands, the Tribunal ought to have rejected their claim. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at the excessive rate of Rs.4,000/-. Further, it was contended that as an excessive multiplier had been adopted, the award towards loss of pecuniary benefits is excessive and unsustainable. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the FIR was registered against the driver of the bus. Post-mortem of the deceased was also contended. Supporting these two aspects, the rough sketch of the accident had also been drawn by the Investigation Wing. Considering these above said three documents and evidence of the petitioners side, the learned Tribunal has given the award in favour of the claimants. The learned counsel further argued that the quantum of compensation is well considered one. At the time of accident, the deceased aged was 55 years and he was working in a private company and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. So, the claimants had established their case before the Tribunal and obtained adequate compensation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cited a Judgment made in 2008 (5) CTC 207, High Court of Madras, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Periyamilaguparai (Kumbakonam Division II) Limited, Trichy Vs. Anjalai and 3 others, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Motor Accident Claim – Deceased hit by Transport Corporation Bus – Negligence – Finding of – Challenged by Transport Corporation in appeal – Non-examination of driver of bus – Non-production of Trip Sheets and other relevant documents – Fatal to case of Appellant – Adverse inference to be drawn against Appellant-Corporation – Finding of negligence upheld. Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Quantum – Determination – Deceased, a Mason aged 52 years – Tribunal fixing notional income of Rs.1,500 p.m. and applying multiplier of 11 awarded Rs.1,32,000 as Loss of Dependency – Transportation Charges : Rs.1,000 – Total Compensation : Rs.1,33,000 – Though, no compensation awarded towards Loss of Consortium and Loss of Love and Affection, High Court declined to enhance compensation in absence of any Appeal or Cross-objection by claimants – Award of compensation confirmed in Appeal. Motor Accident Claims – Law of Evidence – Burden of proof – Denial of accident and liability by Transport Corporation – Burden very heavy on Transport Corporation – Best evidence viz. Driver not examined and trip sheets not filed – Fatal to case of Transport Corporation and award against them confirmed in Appeal." 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the driver of the bus had himself admitted that he was arrested by the Investigation Police Officer. Further, he had admitted in his evidence that the Transport Corporation officials had produced the vehicle for inspection. The FIR also had been registered only as against the driver of the bus. Considering this aspect, the decision taken by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the respondent is justified. Regarding the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.1,92,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, this Court, considering that the award granted under the existing facts and circumstances of the case, is reasonable and fair. Therefore, this Court confirms the Award and Decree, dated 19.12.2002, in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam. 19. On 26.04.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam. 19. On 26.04.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam. Now this Court hereby directs the appellant to deposit the balance award amount, with accrued interest as per the Tribunal Order, made in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 20. As the accident had happened in the year 1996, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their entire apportioned share amount, as fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals made, if any, as per this Court Order dated 26.04.2005. 21. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 19.12.2002, in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.