Judgment :- 1. The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 11.1.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.371 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 31.5.2007 at about 1.30 hours. One Sathiyavelu was riding Hero Honda Splendor from Hosur to Bangalore. He was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. In that accident the said Sathiyavelu suffered very serious head injuries. He was admitted to Sparsh Hospital at Santhapuram and thereafter shifted to Nimhans Hospital for further treatment and again taken to Dharmapuri Headquarters Hospital. However, in spite of best efforts taken to save the injured, he died at Dharmapuri Government Hospital on 8.6.2007. FIR was registered against the driver of the bus. His wife aged 38 years, son aged 18 years, another wife 30 years, minor daughter aged 5 years and minor son aged 3 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was waste iron, plastic materials purchasing shop keeper and was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the first wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses. Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the copy of FIR dated 1.6.2007, Ex.P-2 is the copy of R.C. of the respondents vehicle, Ex.P-3 is the copy of postmortem certificate dated 8.6.2007, Ex.P-4 is the copy of discharge note of the deceased given by Sparsh Hospital, Ex.P-5 is the copy of discharge summary of the deceased given by Nimhans Hospital Bangalore, Ex.P-6 series are the medical bills (31), Ex.P-7 is the copy of driving licence of the deceased, Ex.P-8 is the copy of identity card of the first claimant and Ex.P-9 is the copy of ration card of the claimants. The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of the witnesses, the F.I.R. and also taking note of the fact that the deceased was having valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler came to conclusion that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligence and was responsible for the accident and consequently liability was fixed on the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimants. On this issue, learned counsel for the appellant has no serious objection with regard to the finding of the Tribunal as no material has been placed to come to a different conclusion from that of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased (Rs.4,000/-x 12 x > x 17 = Rs.6,12,000/-) Rs.6,12,000/-2 Medical expenses as per Ex.P-6 Rs. 61,448/-3 Loss of love and affection to the three children (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs. 15,000/-4 Loss of consortium to the two wives (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs. 10,000/-5 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/-6 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-Total Rs.7,08,448/- 6. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, based on the evidence of the first claimant as against the income of Rs.6,000/-per month claimed, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month in respect of the 35 years old deceased, a owner of shop dealing in waste iron and plastic materials. This income can be justified in view of the fact that the accident in this case happened in the year 2007 and on the basis of the following decisions:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/-per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. -Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. -Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/-per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2007. Considering the same, the income of the deceased, a 35 years old business man, supporting two wives, three children and also considering the rise in cost of living and inflationary trend, the income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. 7. The Tribunal deducted < towards personal expenses of the deceased. This appears to be justified in view of the large family that he was supporting. 8. The only serious objection is with regard to multiplier adopted by the Tribunal stating that 17 multiplier is higher and the actual multiplier should be 16. The Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier in terms of Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the age of the deceased who was 35 years old at the time of death and this is in consonance of the Apex Courts decision in Sarla Verma - vs. -Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(2) TNMAC 1 (SC). Therefore, this Court finds no good reason to reduce the multiplier and the quantum of compensation awarded. 9. There is no serious objection in respect of the other amounts granted or the interest granted at 7.5% per annum. 10. Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant prays eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.