Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Vazhuthareddy Post, Villupuram, against the Award and Decree, dated 30.01.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti, awarding a compensation amount of Rs.2,67,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Vazhuthareddy Post, Villupuram 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: On 04.12.1999, at about 14.45 hours, the deceased Thangarasu was coming on Kattugudalore main road, with his goat, while he was nearing Vellakula, a bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0573, came from west to east direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result of the said accident the deceased was grievously injured all over his body. He was immediately taken by the same bus to Government Hospital, Panruti and he was given first aid. Then he was referred to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. He was treated effectively, but he expired at 05.45 p.m. on the same day. 4. The parents of the deceased are the claimants. At the time of the said accident, the deceased was aged about 8 years old and was studying in school. Regarding the said accident, a case was registered by the Muthandi Kuppam Police Station in Crime No.215/99 under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondents Corporation bus driver, the said accident had happened. Hence, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-with interest against the respondents Corporation. 5. The respondent has filed a counter statement and does not admit the age, status of the deceased at the time of the said accident. The respondent further stated in his counter statement that on 04.12.1999 was on its trip from Virudhachalam to Panruti. The driver of the bus drove the bus in a careful and diligent manner on the left side of the road at normal speed. The respondent further stated in his counter statement that on 04.12.1999 was on its trip from Virudhachalam to Panruti. The driver of the bus drove the bus in a careful and diligent manner on the left side of the road at normal speed. When nearing Kattukudalore, the deceased boy suddenly crossed the road from left side to right side without seeing the respondents bus. On seeing that this respondents bus driver tried his best to turn the vehicle to the extreme right side to avoid hitting the boy. But, unfortunately the deceased came into contact with the left side body of the bus and fell down. The accident had occurred only due to the careless and negligent crossing of the road by the deceased. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition with costs. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration namely; (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? (iii)What are the other reliefs? 7. On the side of the petitioners two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and three documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. On the side of the respondent no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The first petitioner was examined as PW1. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 04.12.1999, at about 02.45 p.m., the deceased as walking from western side to eastern side along which his goat. At that time, the respondents Corporation bus came from Virudhachalam to Panruti in the opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Immediately, he was taken to the Panruti Government Hospital for preliminary treatment. Thereafter, the boy was referred to Cuddalore Government Hospital. Further, the PW1 had adduced evidence stating that she is the mother of the deceased and the second petitioner is the father of the deceased. Further, the deceased was studying in School and he was aged about 8 years. The said accident was registered against the driver of the bus for which Ex.P1, FIR, was marked. Further, the PW1 adduced evidence stating that the Post-mortem Certificate issued by the Cuddalore Government Hospital was marked as Ex.P2 and School Certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.P3. The said accident was registered against the driver of the bus for which Ex.P1, FIR, was marked. Further, the PW1 adduced evidence stating that the Post-mortem Certificate issued by the Cuddalore Government Hospital was marked as Ex.P2 and School Certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.P3. Further, the PW1 had adduced evidence stating that at the time of the said accident she was aged about 38 years old and her husband was aged about 39 years old. One eye witness of the said accident was examined as PW2. PW2 had adduced evidence stating that the deceased was proceeded on the mud road along with his coat. When the respondents bus came at high speed and dashed against the deceased. 9. After considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1, First Information Report, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driven by its driver. As such, the respondent/State Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 10. After considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the learned Tribunal had adopted a multiplier method that the deceaseds notional income was Rs.24,000/-per year. After deducting 1/3rd share and adopting multiplier method 15, awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- under the head of loss of income, Rs.2,000/-for funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,67,000/- as compensation to the claimants, 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 compensation. 11. The learned Tribunal further directed the respondent to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest and cost within a period of four weeks, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti. The claimants were permitted to withdraw their half of the respective equal share amount and interest thereon. The rest of the compensation amount to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank for a period of three years in a fixed deposit scheme. 12. The claimants were permitted to withdraw their half of the respective equal share amount and interest thereon. The rest of the compensation amount to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank for a period of three years in a fixed deposit scheme. 12. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant/respondent, The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Vazhuthareddy Post, Villupuram has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal suo moto fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per year instead of Rs.15,000/- Further, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier method of 15 is also erroneous. Further, the age of the deceased was 8 years and the claimants were aged about 38 and 39. As such, the multiplier method is only 12. But, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier method at 15, which is on higher side. The learned counsel further argued that the driver of the bus drove the bus cautiously and in a moderate speed following all traffic rules. But, the deceased all of sudden had crossed the road and dashed against the bus, as such, the accident had happened. Hence, contributory negligence arises in the said accident. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed before this Court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the deceased was aged about 8 years old. Regarding the said accident, a case was registered against the driver of the bus in Crime No.215 of 1999, under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. As per the FIR and Sketch, the driver of the bus is responsible for the said accident. Further, the learned counsel argued that the claimants belong to a poor agricultural family. The deceased had extended co-operation to his parents, even though he was 8 years old, by way of being a shepherd. Naturally, the village people involved in the agricultural work and also shepherd cattle. Further, the learned counsel argued that the award of Rs.2,000/-granted under the head of funeral expenses is on the lower side and transport expenses has not been considered. It is an admitted fact that after the said accident, the boy was immediately taken to Panruti Government Hospital. Naturally, the village people involved in the agricultural work and also shepherd cattle. Further, the learned counsel argued that the award of Rs.2,000/-granted under the head of funeral expenses is on the lower side and transport expenses has not been considered. It is an admitted fact that after the said accident, the boy was immediately taken to Panruti Government Hospital. From there, he was referred to Cuddalore Government Hospital. For which, the claimant is entitled to get compensation under the head of transport expenses, but it was not considered by the Tribunal. Further, the learned counsel argued that anyhow there is no error in the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the documents marked as exhibits, awarded the said compensation. As such, the award is a well considered one. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed before this Court not to scale down the award passed by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited a Judgement made in 2006 ACJ 320, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Shyam Narayan and another V. Kitty Tours & Travel, the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Quantum – Fatal accident – Deceased a girl aged 5 – Claimants: father aged 28 and mother aged 26 – Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000 – Appellate court assessed notional income at Rs.15,000 p.a. as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, adopted multiplier of 15 and allowed Rs.2,25,000 plus Rs.50,000 towards loss of company and pain and suffering – Award of Rs.1,00,000 enhanced Rs.2,75,000." 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and citation submitted by the respondents counsel, this Court is of the view that the award of Rs.2,67,000/- 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 compensation, granted by the Tribunal, is fair and equitable. This Court does not find any error in the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, which is found to be fair and equitable. 16. This Court does not find any error in the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, which is found to be fair and equitable. 16. On 07.03.2007, this Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti, within a period of four weeks from the date of its Order. Further, this Court permitted the claimants to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-with accrued interest, without furnishing security, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti. 17. Therefore, this Court hereby directs the appellant to comply the Tribunal order by way of deposit the balance compensation amount, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. After such deposit is made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest therein, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti, by making proper payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of earlier withdrawal if any made. 18. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 30.01.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Panruti, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to the costs.