Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 13.10.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.1775 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- 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, the appellant/respondent, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri-5 has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The (deceased) Thangaraj was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. He was a building contractor at Bangalore and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per maonth. He was the only breadwinner of his family, the petitioners herein. 4. On 09.11.2002, the (deceased) Thangaraj was proceeding in his TVS Suzuki Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA02 EE2500, on the Dharmapuri to Hosur road and travelling towards Hosur, slowly and cautiously and observing all the rules of the road, on the extreme left side of the road. At about 1.00 p.m. while thus proceeding near Muniappan Temple at Sanamavu Village, the TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1227, belonging to the respondent, driven by its driver M.Sunaram, in a rash and reckless manner, without observing any rules of the road, came at high speed from Hosur side and suddenly hit against the deceased and his motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle, sustained fatal injuries on his vital organs and died on the spot itself. His motorcycle was also completely damaged in the accident. As the accident has been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said respondents bus, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased have claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-from the respondent, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation with costs, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The Uddanapalli Police has registered a case against the driver of the said bus in Crime No.154/2002, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. 6. The respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim. 5. The Uddanapalli Police has registered a case against the driver of the said bus in Crime No.154/2002, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. 6. The respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim. It has been stated that on 09.11.2002, the driver of the TNSTC Bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1227, drove the bus from Hosur towards Dharmapuri, slowly, cautiously and observing all the rules of the road, on the extreme left side of the road. At about 13.00 hrs, while thus proceeding near Muniappan Koil at Sanamavu Village, the deceased, who was riding the TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing registration No.KA02 EE2588, in the opposite side, in a rash and reckless manner, and at an uncontrollable speed without seeing the oncoming TNSTC bus tried to overtake another vehicle and suddenly dashed his vehicle against the bus and died. As such, the deceased had died due to his negligence only and there is no fault on the part of the driver of the said bus. It was also submitted that as the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle have not been impleaded as necessary parties in the claim by the petitioners, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent has also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the deceased and has also stated that the claim is excessive and imaginary and has prayed for dismissal of claim with costs. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i)Who is responsible for the accident? (ii)Are the petitioners entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which they are entitled to get? 8. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. On the respondent side, one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 9. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1. 8. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. On the respondent side, one witness was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked. 9. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1. In his evidence, he has stated that on the date of occurrence of the accident, he had driven the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1227, from Hosur and was proceeding towards Dharmapuri and that when the bus was nearing Muniappan Koil at Sanamavu Village, the deceased, who was talking on his cellphone and riding the TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing registration No.KA02 EE2588 in the opposite side, in a rash and reckless manner and at a high speed tried to overtake the Rajam Bus proceeding in front of the said motorcycle, without seeing the oncoming respondents bus and hence had dashed against the respondents bus. As such, the RW1 had stated that the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the rider of the TVS50 and that as there is no fault on his side, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 10. One Ramamurthi, the eyewitness of the accident was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence has stated that on 09.11.2002, at about 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon he had been looking after a herd of goats assembled on the Sanamavu Reserve forest near Muniappan Temple, on the Hosur to Dharmapuri Road and that he had seen the rider of the TVS Suzuki Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA02 EE2588 proceeding on the left side of the road, from Dharmapuri to Hosur, in a slow and careful manner and adhering to all the traffic rules and regulations and that the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN29 N1227, coming in the opposite direction from Hosur, driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed by its driver, had dashed against the said motorcycle. He had further deposed that as a result of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle had sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. He had further stated that he had lodged a complaint, regarding the said accident, at the Police Station. He had further deposed that as a result of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle had sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. He had further stated that he had lodged a complaint, regarding the said accident, at the Police Station. During cross-examination, the PW2 has deposed that the (deceased) rider of the motorcycle was climbing an incline on the road and that the respondents bus was coming on the opposite direction at high speed. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that PW2 had been the first person to inform the Village Administrator Officer, about the accident and that after this, the Village Administrave Officerhad given the complaint to the Police, wherein it has been stated the respondents bus had dashed against the (deceased) Thangaraj. The Tribunal were of the opinion that if the respondents bus driver had not been responsible for the accident, he would have given the complaint regarding the accident to the Police. But, it is seen that respondents bus driver had not given any complaint to the Police, regarding the said accident. Further, the Tribunal on considering that a vehicle going up on incline on the road cannot proceed at a high speed and that it is possible for the vehicle coming down an incline to travel at high speed held that the (deceased) Thangaraj was going up the incline at a slow speed and that it was the respondents bus, coming down the incline, at a high speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and without sounding horn, which had dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident, which had resulted in the (deceased) Thangaraj sustaining severe injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal were of the opinion that as the petitioners had been fully aware that the accident had been caused only by the fault of the respondents bus driver, they had only given the name of the respondent herein as necessary parties in their claim petition. As such, the Tribunal, on scrutinising the documentary and oral evidence held that the accident had been caused only by the fault of the bus driver and hence held that the respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. As such, the Tribunal, on scrutinising the documentary and oral evidence held that the accident had been caused only by the fault of the bus driver and hence held that the respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Tribunal, further held that as the (deceased) Thangaraj had only died in the above said accident, the petitioners, who are the dependants of the deceased, are entitled to get compensation from the respondent. 11. The first petitioner in the claim petition was examined as PW1. In his evidence, he has deposed that the second and third minor petitioners are her children and that the fourth and fifth petitioners are the parents of the deceased Thangaraj; that at the time of accident, her husband had been hale and healthy and was aged about 27 years; that he was a building contractor and had taken building contract works at Mahalakshmipuram and J.C.Nagar at Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month; that the petitioners were dependants on the income of the deceased; that the deceased Thangaraj used to give the the fourth and fifth petitioners a sum of Rs.2,000/-every month for their medical treatment; that because of the death of her husband, she and all the other petitioners have been deprived of the love and affection of the (deceased) Thangaraj towards them; that the second and third petitioners have been deprived of their guide and mentor; that their education has been affected; that all the petitioners have been forced to lead a life of hardship due to the death of the (deceased) Thangaraj. Further, she had deposed that due to the sudden demise of her husband, the contract work, which had been taken up by the deceased had not been completed and as a result of this the investments made in these works, ie. a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-has been lost. Further, she had deposed in her evidence that the transport expenses incurred by them to transporting the body of the (deceased) Thangaraj was Rs.5,000/-and the funeral expenses incurred by them was Rs.10,000/-. She has also stated that they have incurred a loss of Rs.30,000/-due to the total damage of her (deceased) husbands motorcycle. 12. No documentary evidence had been marked by the PW1 in support of her evidence regarding the age and income of the (deceased) Thangaraj. She has also stated that they have incurred a loss of Rs.30,000/-due to the total damage of her (deceased) husbands motorcycle. 12. No documentary evidence had been marked by the PW1 in support of her evidence regarding the age and income of the (deceased) Thangaraj. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Post-mortem Report, fixed the age of the (deceased) Thangaraj at 27 years. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P3, wherein it is seen that the (deceased) Thangaraj was a building contractor, fixed the notional income of the (deceased) Thangaraj at Rs.5,000/- per month. Taking an annual salary of Rs.60,000/-and adopting a multiplier of 18, as was relevant to the age of the deceased as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal assessed the total future earnings of the (deceased) Thangaraj as Rs.60,000/- X 18 = Rs.10,80,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd share from this for the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the total loss of income to the petitioners as Rs.10,80,000/- - Rs.3,60,000/- = Rs.7,20,000/-and awarded the said sum as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal, further granted an award of Rs.1,00,000/-to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.50,000/-under the head of loss of expectation of life; Rs.1,00,000/-to the petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.20,000/- under the head of mental shock; Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses; Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and 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, with costs, inclusive of interim compensation paid to the petitioners,if any, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1775 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, within a period of two months, from the date of its Order. The first petitioner was apportioned Rs.4,00,000/-; the second and third minor petitioners were apportioned Rs.1,00,000/- each and the fourth and fifth petitioners were apportioned Rs.2,00,000/-each, from and out of the award amount. The first petitioner was apportioned Rs.4,00,000/-; the second and third minor petitioners were apportioned Rs.1,00,000/- each and the fourth and fifth petitioners were apportioned Rs.2,00,000/-each, from and out of the award amount. It was directed that the apportioned award of the first, fourth and fifth petitioners were to be deposited in a nationalised bank, as fixed deposit for a period of three years and the first, fourth and fifth petitioners were permitted to withdraw the interest on their apportioned share, once in six months, directly from the bank. The second and third petitioners apportioned share of award amount was to be invested in a nationalised bank, until such time they attain the age of a major and the first petitioner, being the mother of the second and third petitioners, was permitted to withdraw the interest on such deposit,once in six months, for the welfare and upkeep of the second and third minor petitioners. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.17,000/-. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the appellants bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. It has also been contended that the Tribunal had erred in granting Rs.7,20,000/-towards loss of income by presuming the age and income of the deceased and applying a multiplier of 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also pointed out that Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of love and affection is excessive and that Rs.50,000/-granted under the head of loss of future life and Rs.20,000/-granted under the head of mental shock caused to the claimants are erroneous. 14. As such, it has been contended that the Tribunal should have held that the deceased was entirely responsible for the accident and on this count, the claim as against the appellant should have been dismissed. It was also contended that the award of Rs.10,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal is excessive and arbitrary. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the claimants are 5 in number and all were depending on the deceaseds income alone, as he was the only breadwinner of his family. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged only 27 years and was a building contractor at Bangalore. He was getting a high income through his work as a contractor at Bangalore. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged only 27 years and was a building contractor at Bangalore. He was getting a high income through his work as a contractor at Bangalore. At the time of accident, the first claimant was only 24 years old and the minor claimants were aged only 5 and 2 years respectively. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that the Tribunal, after considering the dependency and age of the deceased, income of the deceased and occupation of the deceased, had awarded the said compensation and that as such, it is fair and reasonable. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that as there was no income proof to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunals assessment of income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- is excessive. Hence, this Court awards the compensation under the head of loss of income and on various other heads as follows: 1. This Court fixes the notional income of deceased as Rs.4,500/-. Deducting ¼th share from this for his personal expenses, this Court computes the monthly contribution of deceased to his family as Rs.3,375/- and yearly contribution as Rs.40,500/-. Adopting a multiplier of 16, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.40,500/- X 16 =Rs.6,48,000/-to the claimants under the head of loss of income. 2. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium. This Court modifies the award granted under this head to Rs.25,000/- only. 3. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to all the claimants under the head of love and affection. This Court modifies the award granted under this head as follows: The second and third minor claimants are awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and the fourth and fifth claimants are awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each. In total, this Court grants an award of Rs.70,000/- only to the second, third, fourth and fifth claimants respectively. 4. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses. This Court confirms the award granted under this head as it is found to be reasonable. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.10,000/-. 6. 4. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses. This Court confirms the award granted under this head as it is found to be reasonable. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. This Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.10,000/-. 6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under the head of loss of expectation of life. This Court confirms the award of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal as it is found to be reasonable and fair. In total, this Court grants an award of Rs.8,08,000/-to the claimants as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, as this is found to be fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case. 17. At the time of admission of appeal ie.on 10.03.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant/State Transport Corporation Ltd., to deposit the entire balance compensation amount, including the interest and costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1775 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri. After such deposit was made, the claimants 1st, 4th and 5th were permitted to withdraw 50% of their apportioned share with entire interest and costs. 18. This Court apportioned the claimants share of the award amount ie. a sum of Rs.8,08,000/- as follows: 1. The first claimant, widow of the deceased, is apportioned a sum of Rs.2,08,000/-. 2. The second and third minor claimants, the children of the deceased, are apportioned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each. 3. The fourth and fifth claimants, the parents of the deceased, are apportioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. 19. As the accident happened in the year 2002, it is open to the claimants 1st, 4th and 5th to withdraw their balance of apportioned share of compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1775 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, by filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 20. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest on the second and third minors apportioned share of the award, once in three months, directly from the bank. This permission has already been granted by this Court on 10.03.2005 and this Court has followed the above direction. 20. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest on the second and third minors apportioned share of the award, once in three months, directly from the bank. This permission has already been granted by this Court on 10.03.2005 and this Court has followed the above direction. The excessive award amount, lying in the credit of the the M.C.O.P.No.1775 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, is liberty to withdraw by the appellant, after observing court formalities. 21. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 13.10.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.1775 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.