Judgment :- 1. When the appeal came up for admission, by consent, the main appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / State Transport Corporation Limited, against the award and decree dated 28.05.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Sub Court, Kallakuruchi, on awarding a compensation a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 28.01.2003, at around 12 noon, the deceased Sayed Ahamed was proceeding on his TVS 50 towards Thiyagardurgam to Kallakurichi along with his son as pillion rider. When he was nearing, Komugi river bridge when at that point of time, the respondent's corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 32-N-1415 coming at high speed from the opposite direction dashed against the motorcyclist. In the result, the rider had succumbed to his injuries instantaneously, hence, the legal-heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition against the respondents for compensation a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest. 4. The respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that the rider of the motorcycle came from the opposite direction in the said road which was curved awkwardly and dashed against the bus, as such the accident occurred. The said accident had been committed by the rider of the motorcycle in a reckless manner, therefore, the insured and insurer are necessary parties, but they have not been impleaded in the said case. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid driving licence. Age, income and occupation of the deceased are denied, besides the claim amount is excessive. 5. On the plea of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; "(i)Whether the accident was committed by the driver of the Corporation bus or rider of the motorcycle in a reckless manner? (ii)Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? By whom is the compensation to be paid? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 6. On the side of the claimants three witnesses had been examined and two documents were marked viz., First Information Report, Postmortem Report. On the side of the respondent two witnesses had been examined and no documentary evidence. 7. By whom is the compensation to be paid? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 6. On the side of the claimants three witnesses had been examined and two documents were marked viz., First Information Report, Postmortem Report. On the side of the respondent two witnesses had been examined and no documentary evidence. 7. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 28.01.2003 at around 12 noon, the deceased and his son were proceeding on the Salem to Cuddalore High Road, when at that time, the respondent bus driven by its driver in a reckless manner and dashed against the motorcyclist, in the result, the rider died instantaneously. At the time of the accident his age was 45 years and was engaged as a building contractor, his earning was Rs.6,000/- per month. PW3 also spoke in tandem on this case. On the side of the respondent RW1 had adduced evidence stating that the rider of the motorcycle came in the curved road in the wrong direction and dashed against the bus, as such the accident had occurred. 8. Against the witnesses of both sides and on perusing of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation as follows:- Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 1/3 x 2 x 5 = Rs.1,80,000/-) towards loss of dependency besides Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for consortium, Rs.35,000/-towards love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident had been committed by the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased as such contributory negligence is attributed, but the Tribunal fashioned the entire liability on the side of the transport Corporation. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, but the deceased's age 60 years. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident had been committed by the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased as such contributory negligence is attributed, but the Tribunal fashioned the entire liability on the side of the transport Corporation. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, but the deceased's age 60 years. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants are seven in numbers and the deceased who was engaged as a constructor, therefore, the award amount is not on the higher side, regarding negligence, a rough sketch was not marked. In the absence of this vital document, this Court is unable to take a decision on negligence. Hence, the award is confirmed which is fair and justifiable. 12. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant / State Transport Corporation to comply with the impugned award of the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order by way of depositing the entire compensation amount with accrued interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.3, Sub Court, Kallakuruchi, subject to deductions, if any already deposited. After such a deposit being made, it is open to the major claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.3, Sub Court, Kallakuruchi, after filing a Memo along with this order. This Court directs the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to deposit the share of the minors into a Nationalized Bank in proximity to the residence of the claimants under the accumulated fixed deposit scheme till the minors attain adulthood. The fixed deposit certificates to be handed over to the first claimant, accordingly ordered. 13. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.3, Sub Court, Kallakuruchi, made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2008, dated 28.05.2010 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.