Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.4470 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 05.06.1998, at about 20.50 hours the deceased R.Rajendran was driving the Van bearing registration No.TSL6474, from Panapakkam to Kunrathoor along Grant West Trunk Road, in the west to east direction. While the said van was proceeding near Mambakkam Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0999, came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to overtake an unknown vehicle. In that process, the bus came to its wrong side and dashed against the van. Due to which, the deceased died on the spot and several others were injured. The first petitioner is the widow of the deceased, the second and third petitioners are the minor sons of the deceased and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents Corporation bus. As such, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 4. The respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., in their Counter, had resisted the claim petition as follows: "It is truly submitted that on05.06.1998, the respondent bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0999, route No.102H, come from Chennai to Vellore with moderate speed observing all rules and regulations of the road. At about 20.50 hours, the bus came near Meenambakkam, a mini lorry bearing registration No.TSL6474 came in the opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. So, the driver of this respondent bus gave light signal and turned the vehicle to his extreme left side of the road inspite of it, the mini lorry came to his right side of the road and hit against this respondent bus. So, the driver of this respondent bus gave light signal and turned the vehicle to his extreme left side of the road inspite of it, the mini lorry came to his right side of the road and hit against this respondent bus. The driver of the bus was faint and unconsciousness sustained bone fracture and grievous injuries. Some other passengers were also injured. The driver of the mini lorry bearing registration No.TSL6474 died on the spot. Due to the impact of this accident the driver of this respondent bus got unconscious hence lost his control. Then the bus want to his right side of the road and got caught in a ditch. The driver of the bus was thrown out from the seat. Then the conductor and some passengers took him to the Government Hospital, Sriperumbudur. The accident is solely due to the rash and the negligent driving of the mini lorry driver. The accident had happened due to the fault of the mini lorry driver. This respondent driver was in no way in fault by this accident. The driver of the bus had handled the bus with due care and caution and observing the rules of road. As such, there is no fault on the part of the driver of the bus. This respondent submits that Police had registered a case against the driver of the Mini lorry TSL 6474 in Crime No.343 of 1998 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) I.P.C.at C.1 Sriperumbudur Police Station will amply prove that this accident had happened only due to the fault of the driver of the mini lorry. Hence, it is submitted that it is unjust for nonjoinder of necessary parties, owner and the insurance company of the Mini Lorry TSL6474. Further, this respondent submits that it has filed a M.C.O.P.No.220 of 1999, before the M.A.C.T.Vellore against the owner and the Insurance Company of the Mini Lorry TSL6474 claiming compensation of Rs.13,941/-towards the damages occurred to this respondent bus. Without prejudice to the contentions stated above it is stated that the petitioner must be called upon to prove his age, occupation and income as stated in Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the petition. Without prejudice to the above contentions, as to negligence, it is submitted that the claim of compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-is too excessive and incommensurable, besides the loss and damages. Without prejudice to the above contentions, as to negligence, it is submitted that the claim of compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-is too excessive and incommensurable, besides the loss and damages. Therefore, the petitioner must be called upon to prove the details of the claim made in Para 21(a) Part I and II of the petition item wise. It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to permit the respondent to file an additional counter in due course if so advised and necessary in the circumstances of the case. In the said circumstances, it is prayed, that this Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition with cost." 5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: (i)Who is responsible for the said accident? (ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. On the petitioners side, the first petitioner, widow of the deceased was examined as PW1 and one Elango, eye-witness of the accident was examined as PW2 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5 namely Ex.P1-Xerox copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P2-Xerox copy of the Post-Mortem Report, Ex.P3-Driving Licence, Ex.P4-Photos, Ex.P5-Legal Heir Certificate. On the respondents side, Rajendran, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 7. The first claimant, PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 05.06.1998, at about 20.50 hours the deceased R.Rajendran was driving the Van bearing registration No.TSL6474, from Panapakkam to Kunrathoor along Grand West Trunk Road, in the west to east direction. While the said van was proceeding near Mambakkam Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0999, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to overtake an unknown vehicle. In that process, the bus came to its wrong side and dashed against the van. Due to which, the deceased died on the spot and several others were injured. The said accident case was registered by the Investigation Officer against the driver of the offending bus. The PW1 had also marked Ex.P1-First Information Report, which is registered against the driver of the respondents Corporation bus, Ex.P2-Post-Mortem Report, Ex.P3-Driving Licence of the deceased Rajendran. Due to which, the deceased died on the spot and several others were injured. The said accident case was registered by the Investigation Officer against the driver of the offending bus. The PW1 had also marked Ex.P1-First Information Report, which is registered against the driver of the respondents Corporation bus, Ex.P2-Post-Mortem Report, Ex.P3-Driving Licence of the deceased Rajendran. Further, the PW1 had adduced evidence stating that she is the wife of the deceased, second and third petitioners are the minor children of the deceased and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased. To prove the relationship, she had marked Ex.P5-Legal Heir Certificate. Further, she had adduced evidence stating that at the time of the said accident her husband was aged about 38 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month, by way of operating the van. 8. PW2, Elango, eye witness of the accident had adduced evidence stating that on 05.06.1998, at about 20.50 hours, he was travelling in the Van bearing registration No.TSL6474, driven by the deceased R.Rajendran, from Panapakkam to Kunrathoor along Grand West Trunk Road, in the west to east direction. While the said van was proceeding near Mambakkam Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, the respondents Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N0999, came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to overtake an unknown vehicle. In that process, the bus came to its wrong side and dashed against the van. Due to which, the deceased died on the spot and he was also injured. 9. RW1, Rajendran, the driver of the respondents Corporation bus had adduced evidence stating that the deceased Rajendran had driven the van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. As such, he is not responsible for the said accident. 10. After considering the evidence of PW1, PW2 and RW1 and documents, which were marked as exhibits, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondents Corporation. Therefore the respondent/Transport Corporation Ltd., is liable to pay compensation and awarded the compensation as follows: i. Rs.6,00,000/- under the head of loss of income, after adopting multiplier method of 15 and deducing 1/3rd share for his personal expenses, since the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and aged 43 years, ii. Therefore the respondent/Transport Corporation Ltd., is liable to pay compensation and awarded the compensation as follows: i. Rs.6,00,000/- under the head of loss of income, after adopting multiplier method of 15 and deducing 1/3rd share for his personal expenses, since the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and aged 43 years, ii. Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to the first claimant, iii. Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, iv. Rs.80,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection to the petitioners, ie.each a sum of Rs.20,000/-, In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,05,000/-as compensation to the petitioners, 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. Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.7,05,000/-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, within a period of three months from the date of its order. In turn, the said amount to be deposited, under a fixed deposit scheme, in a nationalised bank for a period of three years. Further, the Tribunal apportioned a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to the first claimant, Rs.1,70,000/-each to the second, third and fourth claimants. Further, the Tribunal directed that the minors share amount to be continued in the bank deposit till they attain adulthood. Accordingly ordered. 11. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection, including the first claimant, which is not pertinent. Further, the learned counsel specifically pointed out that in the absence of any income proof, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which is also not pertinent to the present case. Further, the learned counsel argued that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to the first claimant, which is on higher side. Hence, the learned counsel prays before this Court to scale down the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Further, the learned counsel argued that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to the first claimant, which is on higher side. Hence, the learned counsel prays before this Court to scale down the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the first claimant is the young widow of the deceased, second and third claimants are the minor sons of the deceased and the fourth claimant is the aged mother of the deceased. Further, the learned counsel argued that the deceased was having own van and by operating the van he was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/-per month. But, the Tribunal suo moto fixed the income as Rs.5,000/-. It is admitted that the deceased had driven his own vehicle. To prove the same Ex.P3-Driving Licence was marked before the Trial Court at the time of adjudication. As such, the award and decree passed by the Tribunal is fair and equitable. Therefore, the learned counsel prays before this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had come to the correct conclusion on the basis of the Post-Mortem Report and on the basis of the evidence rendered by the PW1, stating that her husband was operating his own van. As such, he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the age and income of the deceased and dependancy, the Tribunal adopted multiplier and awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-under the head of loss of income and the remaining heads are also fair and equitable and consequently, there is no discrepancy. As such, this Court confirms the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 15. On 24.08.2005, this Court directed the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4470 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai . 16. As such, this Court confirms the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 15. On 24.08.2005, this Court directed the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4470 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai . 16. As the accident had happened in the year 1998, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw their respective shares, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4470 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, by making proper payment out application, subject to the deduction of withdrawals, if any, and subject to the minors attaining adulthood, in accordance with law. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 10.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.4470 of 1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.