Judgment :- Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in M.C.O.P.No. 843 of 2004 dated 24.10.2005 on the file of Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal for the death of Chitharappa in the road traffic accident on 11.1.2004, Appellant-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has come forward with this Appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 11.1.2004 at about 6.00 hours, deceased Chitharappa and other passengers were travelling as passenger in the Stage Carriage Bus belonging to the Appellant-Transport Corporation bearing registration No.TN-27 N 1359. While the bus was proceeding on Namakkal-Salem Main Road, near Andagalur Gate and Akkaraiyankadu, the driver of the bus driven the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the stationary Trailer lorry bearing registration No.TDM 9664. Due to the impact, Chitharappa sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Namakkal where he died. At the time of accident, Chitharappa was aged 40 years and he was doing food grains business and was getting Rs.15,000/- per month from his business. Regarding the accident, criminal case was registered in Crime No.21/2004 of Rasipuram Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, wife, children and mother of deceased Chitharappa have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. Appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the Claim Petition contending that the driver of the bus drove the same in a nominal speed. When the driver of Appellant-Transport Corporation Bus suddenly applied the brake, the bus dashed against the stationed lorry. It was further averred that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the lorry driver and not due to negligent driving of Appellant-Transport Corporation Bus driver and therefore, the Appellant-Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal, 2nd Claimant-Tiruppathi was examined as PW1. One Loganathan who stood as eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW2. Exs.P1 to P13 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Appellant-Transport Corporation, one Muthusamy, who was then working as Driver in Appellant-Transport Corporation was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. 5. Finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Appellant-Transport Corporation, Tribunal held that Appellant-Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation. On the side of Appellant-Transport Corporation, one Muthusamy, who was then working as Driver in Appellant-Transport Corporation was examined as RW1 and no document was marked. 5. Finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Appellant-Transport Corporation, Tribunal held that Appellant-Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation. Tribunal further held that from Exs.P7 to P13, it has been proved that at the time of accident deceased Chitharappa was doing food grains business and was getting income. Tribunal further held that though the deceased was an Income-tax assessee, Claimants have failed to prove the exact monthly income of the deceased and Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, contribution to the family was calculated at Rs.8,000/-per month. Adopting multiplier "15", Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,40,000/- for "loss of dependency". Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/-for "funeral expenses" and Rs.10,000/- for "transport charges"; Rs.20,000/-for "loss of consortium" and Rs.20,000/- for "loss of love and affection", totalling Rs.15,00,000/- was awarded. 6. It is not necessary for us to narrate entire facts in detail as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation and coverage of policy. It is for the reason that these aspects are recorded infavour of Claimants and none of the findings are under challenge. Only quantum is under dispute. 7. Assailing the quantum of compensation, Mr.Jagadeeswaran, learned counsel for Appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the facts and contrary to the well settled principles. Learned counsel for the Appellant also contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 8. At the time of accident, deceased Chitharappa was doing food grains business and he was getting Rs.15,000/- per month. In his evidence, PW2-Thiruppathy, [son of deceased Chitharappa] has stated that at the time of accident, his father was doing grains business in the name and style "Sri Raghavendra Traders" and was getting Rs.20,000/- per month. PW2 has further stated that his father was also supplying poultry feed to Sri Valli Murugan Agencies; Sri Navaladiyan Traders; Mahalakshmi Feeds; S.S.Foods and Feeds and Sri Saravana Stores and was getting Rs.2000/-to Rs.7000/- respectively per month as commission from them. PW2 has further stated that his father was also supplying poultry feed to Sri Valli Murugan Agencies; Sri Navaladiyan Traders; Mahalakshmi Feeds; S.S.Foods and Feeds and Sri Saravana Stores and was getting Rs.2000/-to Rs.7000/- respectively per month as commission from them. As is seen from Ex.P7-certificate, deceased Chitharappa was supplying food grains to Sri Valli Murugan Agencies and was getting Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-as commission. From Ex.P8, it is seen that Chitharappa was supplying empty gunny bags and was getting commission of Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/-. Likewise, it is seen from Ex.P9, Chitharappa was doing food grains business on commission basis and was getting Rs.7000/-as commission from S.S.Foods and Feeds. From Ex.P10, it is seen that Chitharappa was doing food grains business on commission basis and was getting Rs.2000/-from Sri Saravana Stores. It is also seen from Ex.P11 that Chitharappa was supplying food grains to Mahalakshmi Feeds and was getting Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- as commission. 9. Even though in Exs.P7 to P11-certificates, it has been stated that Chitharappa was getting Rs.3000/-; Rs.4000/-; Rs.7000/-; Rs.2000/-; Rs.3000/- respectively as commission, the Claimants have not examined any reliable person/Proprietor of above said Firms. Claimants have also failed to prove that Chithrappa was getting income of Rs.20,000/- from Sri Raghavendra Traders by doing food grains business. Apart from the oral evidence of PW2, Claimants have not produced any document to show that Chitharappa was earning Rs.39,000/-per month from his business. Though the Claimants have not produced any documents to show the earning of the deceased, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, Tribunal has taken the monthly income of deceased Chitharappa at Rs.12,000/- which in our considered view is quite reasonable. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, Tribunal has taken the monthly contribution/loss of dependency to the family at Rs.8000/-per month. In our considered view, the monthly income and the contribution to the family at Rs.8000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very reasonable warranting no interference. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation mainly contended that Tribunal ought to have adopted less multiplier and the multiplier "15" adopted is on the higher side. In our considered view, the monthly income and the contribution to the family at Rs.8000/- fixed by the Tribunal is very reasonable warranting no interference. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation mainly contended that Tribunal ought to have adopted less multiplier and the multiplier "15" adopted is on the higher side. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation placed reliance upon 2007 ACJ 825 [New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v.Kalpana and others]; 2007 ACJ 1076 [Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Sripriya and others] and 2005 (3) CTC 373 [Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya and others]. 11. In the instant case, at the time of accident, Chitharappa was aged 40 years. For the age group of 40-45 years as per the Second Schedule proper multiplier to be adopted is "15". Having regard to the age of deceased, we are of the view that Tribunal was justified in adopting multiplier "15". Adopting multiplier "15", the "loss of dependency" calculated at Rs.14,40,000/- by the Tribunal is reasonable warranting no interference. 12. In so far as, conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for "funeral expenses"; Rs.10,000/- for "transport charges"; Rs.20,000/-for "loss of consortium" and Rs.20,000/- for "loss of love and affection". In our considered view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under those heads are also very reasonable warranting no interference. 13. The interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is also in order with the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court and the same is also maintained. The compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro rata basis in the proportion of apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal. 14. In the result, the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.843/2004 dated 24.10.2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Fast Track Court No.III], Namakkal is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. It was stated before us that Appellant-Transport Corporation has deposited 50% of the award amount along with accrued interest. Out of which Claimants 1 and 4 have withdrawn their respective share along with accrued interest. The share in respect of Minor Claimants 2 and 3 was ordered to be invested in a nationalised bank. Claimants 2 and 3 now appears to have attained majority. Out of which Claimants 1 and 4 have withdrawn their respective share along with accrued interest. The share in respect of Minor Claimants 2 and 3 was ordered to be invested in a nationalised bank. Claimants 2 and 3 now appears to have attained majority. After obtaining necessary orders from the Tribunal declaring them as major, Claimants 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share in the deposited amount of 50%. Appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance 50% of compensation along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share along with accrued interest thereon.