Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Metropolitan Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.3260 of 2005 on the file of learned II Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 19.06.2005, at about 20.30 hours, when the (deceased) H.Veerappan was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-Q-0507, slowly and cautiously in M.T.H.Road from west to east, the M.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3596 coming behind the motorcycle and driven rash and negligently and thereby caused multiple injuries to the (deceased) Veerappan, which later resulted in his death. Hence, the petitioners, who are the legal-heirs of the deceased have claimed a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondent, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 2. 3. The respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim and denied the averments in the claim regarding the accident. The respondent has stated that on 19.06.2005, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3596 completed all the trips and there was no report of the accident involving the bus. The crew of the bus had not reported any accident on that day. The respondents have also said that the claim was excessive. 4. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal framed four issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the MTC bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3596? (ii)Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation? (iii)Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? (iv)To what relief?” 5. On behalf of the petitioner, three witnesses were examined and thirteen documents were marked as Ex.P1- to Ex.P13. No witness was examined on the side of the respondent and no document was marked. 6. The second petitioner, the son of the deceased Dr.V.Vimal Doshi was examined as PW1. PW1 adduced evidence that the first petitioner is his mother and the third petitioner is his grandmother who died during the pendency of the petition. He further adduced evidence that was in consonance with the version of accident as mentioned in the claim. The eyewitness of the accident, Tmt.Vanaja, was examined as PW2. PW2 adduced evidence that on 19.06.2005, at about 08.30 hours, when she was standing on the M.T.H. Road, Villivakkam opposite to Burial ground, one motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-Q-0507 came from west to east direction. The eyewitness of the accident, Tmt.Vanaja, was examined as PW2. PW2 adduced evidence that on 19.06.2005, at about 08.30 hours, when she was standing on the M.T.H. Road, Villivakkam opposite to Burial ground, one motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-Q-0507 came from west to east direction. At that time, the M.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3596, (Route No.22A) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the motorcycle. The motorcyclist was thrown out and he sustained severe head injuries. 7. Thiru V.Murugan, the driver of the respondent's bus was examined as RW1. RW1, adduced evidence that on 19.06.2005, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3596 was proceeding from Aynavaram to Thiruvanmiyur. The above said bus completed all the trips on that day and there was no accident involving the above said bus. Based on Ex.P1, F.I.R., Ex.P2-rough sketch, Ex.P3-charge sheet, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-3596. 8. PW1 has adduced evidence that at the time of accident, his father (deceased) Veerappan was aged 48 years and he was the Manager in S.M.M. Industries, Ambattur Estate, Chennai and has marked Ex.P7. As per Ex.P6, legal-heir certificate, the first, second and third petitioners are the legal-heirs of deceased. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the second petitioner is the son of deceased and the third petitioner is the mother of deceased, who had expired during pendency of claim. 9. The Tribunal, taking into account age of deceased as per Ex.P4 as 50 years and considering his salary as Rs.9,000/- per month, after scrutiny of Ex.P7, salary certificate, Ex.P10-C.E.R. Certificate; the factory permission letter and sketch marked as Ex.P11; attendance roll for the month of May 2005 to September 2005 as per Ex.P12 and the salary wages sheet marked as Ex.P13 and adopting a multiplier of 13, awarded compensation of Rs.9,36,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 2/3 x 12 x 13). Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium to the first petitioner'; Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life; Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection to the second petitioner and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium to the first petitioner'; Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life; Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection to the second petitioner and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,36,000/- to the first and second petitioners together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of petition till date of deposit and directed the respondent to deposit the award within two months from the date of its order. 10. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent has filed the present appeal to set-aside the award. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was also responsible for the accident. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier as “13” instead of “11”, as the deceased was aged 50 years. Further, the award of Rs.20,000/- granted as compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life is erroneous. It was further contended that the award under the other heads were excessive and not sustainable in law. The learned counsel further argued that the second claimant was not depending on the income of the deceased. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'consortium', which is on the higher side. Further Rs.50,000/- was awarded under the head of 'love and affection', which is also on the higher side. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased's age was 48 years; he was a qualified engineer and proprietor of an industry at Ambattur. As such, he was earning a sum of Rs.9,500/- per month. In order to prove the same, Ex.P7-Salary certificate was marked. The third claimant was aged about 76 years and the other two claimants were also depending on the income of the deceased. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had properly assessed the compensation and awarded the same to the claimants. 13. In order to prove the same, Ex.P7-Salary certificate was marked. The third claimant was aged about 76 years and the other two claimants were also depending on the income of the deceased. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had properly assessed the compensation and awarded the same to the claimants. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the assessment of the compensation under the head of 'loss of income' of a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- is reasonable. The rest of the compensation of a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the compensation granted under this head to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'loss of expectation of life'. This is set-aside by this Court as it is inappropriate. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'love and affection'. This Court reduces the award under this head to Rs.10,000/- and this Court awards Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses respectively. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.9,86,000/- as compensation, which is fair and justifiable in this case. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.10,36,000/- to Rs.9,86,000/- . This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant to comply with this Court order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3260 of 2005 on the file of II Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, after filing a Memo along with this order. 14. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.3260 of 2005, dated 06.04.2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.