Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/first respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 21.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/first respondent, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 01.08.2001, at about 2.15 p.m. while the deceased Sekar was driving the Auto bearing registration No.TN25 B5564, on the left side of the road, near Vinnayanur Village, the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0837, belonging to the appellant herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the Auto. Due to which, the deceased and two others received multiple fatal injuries all over the body and that the deceased died at the Hospital. The first respondent is the second wife of the deceased, second respondent is the son, respondents 3 to 6 are the son and daughters of the first wife of the deceased, who was predeceased, 7th respondent is the mother and the 8th respondent is the father of the deceased. The deceased was having valid driving licence and drove the auto according the rules and regulations and earning not less than Rs.250/- per day and contributed his entire income to the family. The said accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The owner and Insurance Company of the Auto have also been impleaded as parties for proper adjudication of the case. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners for the death of deceased. Regarding the said accident, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathanur Dam Police Station, registered a criminal case in Crime No.220/2001, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) I.P.C. As such, the petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation and costs from the respondents. 4. Regarding the said accident, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sathanur Dam Police Station, registered a criminal case in Crime No.220/2001, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) I.P.C. As such, the petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation and costs from the respondents. 4. The first respondent/the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., in his Counter has resisted the claim petition, which reads as follows: "The averments contained in Para 1 to 23 of the petitioners are all false. It is utter false and reckless to state that the deceased involved in the accident on 01.08.2001 at about 2.15 p.m. while he was travelling in auto bearing registration No.TN25 B5564 near Vinnavanur Village, Chengam Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0837. The respondent denies the age, income and occupation of the deceased and puts the petitioners to the said particulars by way of documentary evidence. The particulars of claim mentioned in Para 21A of the petition are not correct and they are made without any basis whatsoever. The averment that all the family members were solely dependent upon the income of the deceased, the deceased was employed as driver under Tamil Nadu State Government and that he earns not less than Rs.6,500/-per month and contributed his entire income to the family are all false. It is submitted that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver himself. The averments contained in Para 23 of the petition are all false. The manner of accident as alleged by the petitioners is not correct the true facts are: That on 01.08.2001, at about 2.15 p.m. when the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0837 was driving the same with the care and caution following the traffic rules, near Vinnavannur Village, The deceased Sekar, who was driving his auto bearing registration No.TN25 B5564 on the opposite side from Chengam with three passengers in his auto in a rash and negligent manner consuming full of alcohol over took the town bus which was proceeding in front of him and dashed against the respondents vehicle suddenly, the respondents driver on seeing the rash driving of the auto driver stopped his bus by suddenly applying the brakes. Anyhow since the deceased auto driver was fully intoxicated and drive his auto in a rash and negligent manner violating the traffic rules by driving the auto by suddenly taking the wrong side of his road dashed against the respondent bus and caused the accident. The deceased Sekar is solely responsible for the said accident and the respondents driver is not responsible in any manner for the said accident. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Anyhow, this respondent submits that the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and the petition is liable to be dismissed. This respondent submits that the auto involved in the accident belongs to the second respondent and the same has been insured with the third respondent and as if at all any compensation is payable to the petitioners they have to claim it from the second and third respondents." 5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the accident? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so to what amount and from whom? 6. On the petitioners side, four witnesses were examined as P1 to P4 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 namely Ex.P1-attested Xerox copy of the FIR, Ex.P2-attested copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, Ex.P3-attested copy of the Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P4-Salary Certificate of the deceased Sundararajan, Exs.P5 and P6-attested copies of the Post-mortem Certificates, Ex.P7-attested copy of the rough plan and Ex.P8-attested copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. On the respondents side, one Mohan was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.B1 and B2-photographs with negatives. 7. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PW1, perusing the FIR and also the PW4s eye witness, had come to the conclusion that the drivers of both vehicles are responsible for the accident that the accident is as a result of composite negligence of the drivers of both vehicles and the percentage of contribution that is the ration of negligence 75:25. 8. 8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, PW2 had adduced evidence that her husband Sekar as an auto driver, was earning a sum of Rs.150/-per day, that he used to work all the 30 days in a month, that the entire income was spared by him for the family, and that her husband was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. Ex.P5 is the copy of the post-mortem report deceased Sekar was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. Except for the formal questions during the course of cross examination of PW2, the fact that deceased Sekar was earning as an auto driver is not very much disputed. It is also not disputed that the time of the accident, he was driving the auto. In a pilgrimage town like Tiruvannamalai, the daily income of an auto driver can be reasonably fixed at Rs.150/-and one can except that an auto driver to earn an average of Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. The multiplier as per the Act for the age between 30 and 35 is 17. so, the total compensation comes to Rs.6,12,000/-. As already pointed for the accident, deceased Sekar the auto driver has also contributed to an extent of 25% So out of Rs.6,12,000/- if 25% is deducted the amount is Rs.4,59,000/- (Rs.6,12,000/- - Rs.1,53,000/-). Out of this amount 1/3 is to be deducted towards the expenses for maintenance of the deceased, had he been alive. So if a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-is deducted the compensation amount comes to Rs.3,06,000/-. Towards the loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Act provides for a payment of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/-. Thus the petitioners are entitled to for a compensation of Rs.3,13,000/-. Out of the compensation amount, the first petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,13,000/-minor petitioners 2 to 6 are each entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and petitioners 7 and 8 are each entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The first petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued till the date of payment on her share and on the share of the minor petitioners 2 to 6 for the maintenance of the family especially the minors. Petitioners 7 and 8 are also permitted to withdraw the interest accrued till the date of payment on their share. The first petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued till the date of payment on her share and on the share of the minor petitioners 2 to 6 for the maintenance of the family especially the minors. Petitioners 7 and 8 are also permitted to withdraw the interest accrued till the date of payment on their share. The compensation amount of petitioners 1, 7 and 8 is ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for three years. Petitioners 1, 7 and 8 are permitted to withdraw the interest due on the deposit once in three months. The compensation amount of minor petitioners 2 to 6 is ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit under reinvestment scheme with the same nationalised bank for a period of three years or till they complete 18 years of age which ever is longer. Accordingly, the M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002 was ordered. 9. Aggrieved by the said award and decree the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., has filed this appeal to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that in the connected claim cases liability is fastened on the Insurance Company as well as the State Transport Corporation as 25%:75%. But in the case, the entire liability fastened on the transport corporation is erroneous. The view taken by a common judgment. Further the learned counsel argued that the deceased had driven the auto on the wrong side beyond the meridian line and dashed against the Corporation bus. Therefore, the liability had been fastened on the appellant is not pertinent. As such, the learned counsel prays before this Court to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company argued that the vehicle of the transport corporation is a heavy duty vehicle, hence there was no damage to the said vehicle neither any passengers hurt. Whereas the auto being a light vehicle got fully damaged and the passengers occupying the auto got injuries including fatal injuries also. This had happened due to the appellant Corporation vehicle dashing against the auto. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this case is fair and equitable. As such, the learned counsel prays before this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 12. This had happened due to the appellant Corporation vehicle dashing against the auto. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this case is fair and equitable. As such, the learned counsel prays before this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8/claimants argued that the deceaseds age was 30 years and an auto driver by profession, the claimants are 7 in number, among them a young widow, an aged mother and minor children. The compensation amount of a sum of Rs.3,13,000/-is on the lower side. Therefore, the above appeal is not maintainable regarding the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays before this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 13. 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 learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and an auto driver by profession and all the claimants are solely depending upon the deceased. The first claimant a young widow aged about 22 years and the claimants 2 to 6 are minors including a one year old infant. Therefore, this Court confirms the award and decree, dated 21.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, which is fair and equitable. 14. On 17.01.2005, this Court imposed a condition, on the appellant/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Thiruvannamalai. The same was complied to, thereafter the claimants were permitted to withdraw a portion of the deposited amount. 15. Now, this Court permits the claimants/respondents 1 to 8 to withdraw their apportioned share amounts with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Thiruvannamalai, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals if any and further subject to the claimants 2 and 3 attaining adulthood. 16. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award and decree, dated 21.09.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002, is confirmed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.