Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 01.10.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.776 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Small Causes Court, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, Vice-President, Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 06.12.2001, at about 18.45 hrs, the (deceased) K.Karuppiah @ Chinnaiah was riding his TVS50 moped bearing registration No.TN55 D0279, from south to north, on Madurai to Tiruchy main road, on the western side of the road. When he was proceeding near Vadiankalam Village, Kodumbalur Post, the bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z7393, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came from behind, in the same direction and dashed against the (deceased) Karuppiah, due to which he died on the spot and his moped was also completely damaged. The driver of the bus alone was solely responsible for the accident. 4. He was taken to Government General Hospital and post-mortem was conducted on 07.12.2001. The deceased Karuppiah was aged about 44 years at the time of accident and he was an agriculturist. He was also doing Charchol and fire-wood business in Chennai and was earning about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.503/2001 by Viralimalai Police Station, Pudukottai District. 6. Hence, the respondent, as the owner of the bus is vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, with interest and costs. The petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-in their claim from the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T.Rules. 7. The respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim denying the manner of accident as alleged in the claim. The petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-in their claim from the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T.Rules. 7. The respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim denying the manner of accident as alleged in the claim. It has been stated that the respondents bus driver was driving the bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z7393 from Rameswaram to Tirupathi on 06.12.2001 and that about 19.15 hrs, when the bus was nearing Kodumbalur Village, the rider of the TVS50 moped bearing registration No.TN55 D0279, crossed the road from left side to right side, at a high speed and without showing any signal as required under the act. The respondents bus driver applied brakes and swerved the vehicle to the extreme left side, by in spite of this, the two wheeler came into contract with the right side bumper of the bus and so the (deceased) Karuppiah fallen down and sustained injuries. It was also submitted that the place of collision viz.Madurai – Tanjore High Road was a broad road and the respondents driver was driving his bus in a diligent manner. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondents driver was not solely liable for the accident in question and that the deceased has also contributed for the accident. The respondent has also not admitted the averments contained in the claim as regards the age, income, occupation and employer of the deceased. Further, the respondent has submitted that the petitioners have not given any details as to how the quantum was arrived at. As such, it was submitted by the respondent that the claim was arbitrary, excessive, unreasonable and without any basis and hence it was prayed that the claim petition should be dismissed. 8. 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 get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which they are entitled to? 9. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P24. On the respondents side one witness was examined as PW1 and no documents were marked. 10. (ii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which they are entitled to? 9. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 24 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P24. On the respondents side one witness was examined as PW1 and no documents were marked. 10. It has been accepted by both the parties that the accident had occurred due to the collision of the said bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z7393 and the TVS50 moped bearing registration No.TN55 D0279, on 06.12.2001, at about 6.45 p.m. at Kodambalum, on the Rameswaram to Tirupathi Road and that the (decease) Karuppiah, rider of the said TVS50, had sustained injuries in the accident and had died. It was also accepted by the parties that the said bus involved in the accident was owned by the respondent. 11. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. The PW1 in her evidence had deposed that the accident was caused due to the fault of the bus driver. The respondent had countered this by stating that the deceased did not ride his two wheeler properly and that the accident was caused because of the fault of the deceased. The eye witness to the accident, Mr.Amaladas, Assistant Investigating Officer, was examined as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence has deposed that only the bus had collided against the said TVS50 and that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the bus driver. The bus driver, K.M.K.Basha, was examined as RW1. The RW1, in his evidence has stated that he was a following driver and that the rider of the TVS50 had suddenly come out of the mud road and entered into the main road, without giving any signal, and that the bus driver had swerved the bus to the left side of the road, but in spite of this, the bus had collided with the TVS50. It is seen from the evidence adduced by the PW1 and PW2 that the accident had not happened due to a head on collision between the two vehicles involved in the accident and that the bus, which was coming behind the TVS50 had collided against it. It is evident from a reading of Ex.P4, the Charge Sheet, that the driver of the bus has been shown as the offending party. It is evident from a reading of Ex.P4, the Charge Sheet, that the driver of the bus has been shown as the offending party. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, the FIR, it is seen that a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the bus and that the accident had been caused only due to his negligence. 12. The respondent had only examined the following driver as a witness and had not examined the driver of the bus involved in the accident. Further, no reasons has been laid down by the respondent to explain that why the driver of the bus was not examined as a witness. The RW1 has stated in his evidence that he had not driven the said bus at the time of accident and had also deposed that the bus driver was arrested by the Viralimalai Police and later released on bail and that the bus driver was presently working in the respondents Corporation. As such, the Tribunal were of the view that the respondent had not examined the bus driver as he was the cause for the accident. The respondent in their counter had submitted that the driver of the bus, on seeing the rider of the TVS50 coming suddenly from a mud road on to the main road, had stopped the bus on the extreme left of the road and that it was only the rider of the TVS50, who had dashed his vehicle against the bus. But, from a scrutiny of Exs.P2 and P4, it is seen that the bus had come from behind the TVS50 and dashed against the said TVS50 and hence the Tribunal were not inclined to accept the manner of accident as alleged by the respondent and held that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the bus driver. The Tribunal on considering the evidence of witnesses examined on the petitioners side and also considering the fact that no contra evidence, either oral or documentary has been laid down to refute the claims of the petitioners on the respondents side, and also considering that the evidence given by the PW2, the eye witness to the accident was found to be genuine held that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the bus driver. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, the Post-mortem Report, it is evident that the rider of the TVS50 had died due to the accident. It is seen from the oral and documentary evidence of petitioners side that the rider of the TVS50 had died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.P1 is the Legal Heir Certificate showing that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. The PW1 in her evidence has stated that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and that they were dependant on the income of the deceased. This contention has not been refuted by the respondents side. As such, the Tribunal held that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and as he had died due to the injuries caused in the said accident, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation and that the compensation has to be paid by the respondent. 13. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P2, the Post-Mortem Report, held that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of the accident. The PW1, in her evidence had stated that the deceased was a coal merchant and that he had transacted business in coal by sending the bags packed with coal to various places at Chennai and Trichy. She had further deposed that the deceased was the owner of 5 Acres of land and that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. In support of her evidence, she has marked Ex.P8, the Bank Pass Book for the year 1989. On scrutiny of the Ex.P8, it is seen that the deceased did not have an income of Rs.15,000/-to Rs.20,000/- as alleged by the petitioner. The Ex.P8 reveals the transactions from the year 1989 to 2001. Ex.P7 is the Pass Book pertaining to recurring deposit transactions. It has been shown in this book that a monthly payment of Rs.150/- has been deposited by the deceased every month. The R.D.Pass Book is pertaining to the transactions for the years from 1985 to 1989. It is seen from a scrutiny of the transactions that the balance in this account is only Rs.24/-. Ex.P5 is the Pass Book issued by Indian Bank, wherein transactions for the years from 1982 to 2001 has been given. It is seen that the balance in this account is also very low. It is seen from a scrutiny of the transactions that the balance in this account is only Rs.24/-. Ex.P5 is the Pass Book issued by Indian Bank, wherein transactions for the years from 1982 to 2001 has been given. It is seen that the balance in this account is also very low. A scrutiny of the Pass Book does not establish that the deceased was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Ex.P11 is the Real Estate Card showing that the instalments have been made by the deceased to procure a house. From a scrutiny of ExP11, it is seen that monthly payments of Rs.275/- has been made by the deceased towards the said instalments and they were made on behalf of his son, Kumaravel. Ex.P13, is the copy of the RC Book showing that the deceased was the owner of the said TVS50. Ex.P14 to Ex.P23 are the copies of deeds regarding immovable properties in the name of the deceased. On a scrutiny of these exhibits, it is seen that the deceased was the owner of more than 5 Acres of land and that he had housing flats at Srinivasa Nagar. The Tribunal, on considering that the petitioners had not marked any documents to show that the income earned by the deceased and also considering the documentary exhibits pertaining to bank transactions and immovable properties, were not convinced that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal held that the deceased was getting some income through agricultural activities. The Tribunal was of the opinion that even after the death of the (deceased) Karuppiah, the petitioners are still the owners of the said land, held that the no monetary loss has been incurred on this count, due to the death of the husband of the fist petitioner PW1. The Tribunal had relied on a case law cited in 2004-1 Law Weekly, on this issue, for coming to the above conclusion, the operative portion of which has been given below: "Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Sections 166, 168 Just compensation – Death of agriculturist in motor accident – Determination of compensation claimed by his heirs. The Tribunal had relied on a case law cited in 2004-1 Law Weekly, on this issue, for coming to the above conclusion, the operative portion of which has been given below: "Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Sections 166, 168 Just compensation – Death of agriculturist in motor accident – Determination of compensation claimed by his heirs. Deceased was stated to be an agriculturist, earning Rs.10,000 p.m. by cultivating his agricultural land and from his avocation of purchasing and selling cattles and by selling milk – Appeal preferred by State of Haryana to Supreme court contending that no material was placed to prove the income of the deceased and the type of land that he possessed – Held: the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source – The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs – No material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs.4,500/- p.m. - Order modified by Supreme Court fixing Rs.3000/- per month and compensation reduced to Rs.4,32,000/-." 14. As such, the Tribunal considering that though the petitioners had proved that they had immovable property and produced proof to show what type of property were owned by them held that as the said land was still owned by them, the petitioners had not incurred any loss of income on this count, due to the death of deceased. It was further opined by the Tribunal that the petitioners were still getting income from out of the said properties. Though the PW1 had adduced in her evidence that they were owning 5 Acres of land, but could only harvest about ½ Acres of the land in this, the Tribunal were of the opinion that the issue of making best use of the land is vested with the petitioners and hence they could not conclude from this that the petitioners had incurred a loss of income. The Tribunal holding that the deceased could have procured the immovable properties from out of the income got through his coal business held that the deceased could have earned a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Deducting 1/3 of this for his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs.3,000/- and held the yearly contribution to his family as Rs.36,000/-. Deducting 1/3 of this for his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the contribution of the deceased to his family as Rs.3,000/- and held the yearly contribution to his family as Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal, based on the aged of deceased, his occupation and income awarded a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. They further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of expectancy of life and Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the second, third and fourth petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation, which was also inclusive of interim award granted, if any and directed the respondents to deposit the above said award with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.776 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Small Causes Court, Chennai, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. The Tribunal, further apportioned Rs.2,25,000/-to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-each to the second, third and fourth petitioners and directed that the apportioned share of award of petitioners was to be deposited in State Bank of India, Mylapore Branch for a period of three years, as fixed deposit. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.13,000/-. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal below failed to see that the deceased, who was riding a TVS50 motorcycle crossed the road without giving any signal in his vehicle, which contributed to the accident, and that the driver of the appellants bus was not negligent. Further, it was pointed that the claimants had contended that they were not only dependant on the deceaseds income, but also on the income from agricultural lands owned by the deceased and hence the Tribunal should not have applied multiplier contrary to views of Supreme Court. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased incorrectly and as such the compensation awarded on this basis by the Tribunal was erroneous. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased incorrectly and as such the compensation awarded on this basis by the Tribunal was erroneous. It was also submitted that the Tribunal had come to a finding of negligence on the part of the appellants driver in a mechanical manner. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the (deceased) rider of motorcycle and as such the Tribunals assessment of compensation is excessive. 16. Further, it was contended that as there were not much transactions in the bank accounts of the deceased, the reasoning given by the Tribunal in fixing the award is devoid of merits and hence it was prayed that the award of the Tribunal should be set aside. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the quantum of compensation has been properly assessed by the Tribunal, after considering the age of the deceased, occupation, income, dependancy etc. Further, the deceased has earned income from multiple sources through his firewood charcoal business and from agricultural lands. The claimants are the widow of the deceased, two daughters and one minor son of the deceased. Due to this accident, their teenage life has been affected. All the claimants were dependant on the income of the deceased alone. 18. The Court considered the facts and circumstances and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and the calculations submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who had pointed out that only Rs.4,53,000/- with 9% per annum should have been awarded. 19. This Court is of the view that as the accident happened in the year 2001, and considering the business of deceased was in agricultural operations and dependants being 4 in number, the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, after deducting 1/4th share from this for his personal expenses, his annual contribution to his family is worked out as Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 14 – Rs.36,000/- X 14 – Rs.5,04,000/- and accordingly this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,04,000/- to the claimants under the head of loss of income. Hence, after deducting 1/4th share from this for his personal expenses, his annual contribution to his family is worked out as Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 14 – Rs.36,000/- X 14 – Rs.5,04,000/- and accordingly this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,04,000/- to the claimants under the head of loss of income. This Court awards a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the first petitioner under the head of loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the second, third and fourth petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection. This Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,54,000/- 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 found equitable and fair, in circumstances of the case. 20. Therefore, this Court scales down the award granted by the Tribunal from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.5,54,000/-. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess compensation amount of Rs.46,000/- with proportionate accrued interest, lying the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.776 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Small Causes Court, Chennai, after observing necessary formalities. 21. As the accident happened in the year 2001, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their compensation amount, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.776 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing necessary application, in accordance with law. 22. Already, this Court permitted the respondents to withdraw 50% of the award granted by the Tribunal with proportionate interest. Now, this Court permits the claimants to withdraw the balance amount, as per the proportion ratio assessed by the Tribunal. 23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, and the Award and Decree, dated 01.10.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.776 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V-Small Causes Court, Chennai, is modified. Consequently, connected cross objection and miscellaneous petition are closed. No costs.