Judgment :- 1. The appellant has filed the above appeal against the award and decree passed M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, FTC, Vellore, awarded as compensation a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- together with interest at the rate 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Having not been satisfied with this award, the claimants have filed the above appeal for additional compensation i.e., a sum of Rs.14,99,000/- with interest. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 14.07.2006 at about 08.35 a.m., the deceased was proceeding on his TVS-XL motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-23L-4189 on the Pudur road, Ramapuram, when at that point of time the respondent Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-23N-1225 was coming from the opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist, as a result he had sustained multiple injuries, immediately he was taken to the Appollo KH hospital and Ramachandra hospital, Porur, wherein he had undergone treatment for a period of three days. Subsequently, he succumbed to his injuries since the medical treatment proved a failure. Therefore the legal heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition against the respondent for compensation a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest. 4. The second respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the accident stating that it was committed by the driver of the bus. Actually on 14.07.2006 the bus was proceeding towards Arcot, when at that point of time the deceased had ridden his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control resulting that the deceased dashed against the bus and in this way the accident had occurred. The Owner and Insurance Company of the two wheeler have not been impleaded as parties, in the claim petition, since, they are the concerned parties. At the time of the accident the rider of the two wheeler was not possessing driving licence. Age, income and occupation of the deceased are denied besides the compensation amount is excessive. 5. On considering the plea of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: 1. At the time of the accident the rider of the two wheeler was not possessing driving licence. Age, income and occupation of the deceased are denied besides the compensation amount is excessive. 5. On considering the plea of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: 1. Was the accident committed by the driver of the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-23N-1225 in a reckless manner? 2. What is other relief? On the side of the claimants four witnesses had been examined and thirty three documents are marked which are as follows: FIR, post mortem report, medical bills motor vehicle Inspector’s report, School transfer certificate, death certificate, legal heirs certificate, final report, marriage invitation, Income-tax statement, Promissory note, finance receipt, etc. On the side of the respondent RW.1 was examined. 6. PW.2 had adduced evidence stating that on 14.07.2006 at about 08.15 a.m., the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from west to east direction on the Ramapuram to Pudur National High ways, when at that point of time the respondent bus came at high speed and in a reckless manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. RW.1 had adduced evidence stating that the bus was proceeding towards Arcot on the left side of the road, when at that time the deceased had ridden his motorcycle and tried to deviate the right side, as a result he dashed against the bus. 7. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased, 2nd and 3rd claimants are the children of the deceased. At the time of the accident the age of the deceased was 55 years and he was involved in Agricultural operations and finance was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-per month. On considering the evidence of the witnesses the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. Not being satisfied with this award, the claimants have filed the above appeal for additional compensation i.e., a sum of Rs.14,99,000/- with interest. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased’s age was 52 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month through agricultural operations and finance, he was an income tax assessee. To substantiate the same the claimant had marked Income-tax particulars i.e., Exs.P15 and P16. In order to prove the finance business the claimants have marked promissory notes, financial receipt, profit and loss accounts etc. To substantiate the same the claimant had marked Income-tax particulars i.e., Exs.P15 and P16. In order to prove the finance business the claimants have marked promissory notes, financial receipt, profit and loss accounts etc. Regarding agricultural income proof, the particulars are available on the income tax statement. 10. The learned counsel further argued that the deceased had undergone treatment at 3 different hospitals for better treatment, even though he had expired. Since, the treatment proved ineffective. On medical expenses alone about Rs.8,000/- was spent. The deceased was bending about Rs.10,00,000/- to various private individuals and this amount could not be recovered. In order to prove the money bending venture, several documents had been marked viz., promotes, property documents through additional type set of papers. The learned Tribunal had adapted the multiplier method as 8 which is on the lower side, since the deceased’s age was 52. 11. The learned counsel for the State Corporation vehemently argued that in the said accident two vehicles had been involved, as such contributory negligence is attributed. Actually the deceased had ridden his two wheeler on the wrong side and dashed against the bus, as such the accident took place. 12. The learned counsel further argued even though the deceased was an income tax assessee, the taxable income was around Rs.15,000/- there was no crystal finding or documentary evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month through finance business and agricultural operations, further there was authenticated proof that the deceased had contributed to his family 2/3rd of his income i.e., Rs.20,000/- per month. 13. On the basis of available evidence the Tribunal had assessed the compensation as a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- with interest is adequate compensation. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant argued that the Tribunal had not considered medical expenses, transport, loss of estate etc., besides consortium was not considered. Rs.5,000/- for Funeral expenses of and Rs.5,000/- for love and affection which are on the lower side hence inadequate. The learned counsel pointed out that once the negligence is proved against the respondent’s bus driver the claimants are entitled to receive adequate compensation. 15. Rs.5,000/- for Funeral expenses of and Rs.5,000/- for love and affection which are on the lower side hence inadequate. The learned counsel pointed out that once the negligence is proved against the respondent’s bus driver the claimants are entitled to receive adequate compensation. 15. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned decision of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased’s date of birth 03.08.1954 as per the school transfer certificate, as per Exs.15 and 17 i.e., income tax particulars. As such the deceased was a bonafide income tax assessee, as per Exs.19 to 33 i.e., pronotes and financial receipts which are proved that the deceased was a moneylender and was earning sufficient income, besides medical bills Exs.1 to 3 have proved that medical expenses were incurred. Apart from this the claimant had filed some title deeds in the type set of papers which were proved that the deceased was engaged in agricultural operations, therefore, this Court is inclined to grant adequate compensation to the claimants. This compensation is being assessed as follows: 1. Rs.6,60,000/- (Rs.7,500/- 12x1/3x2x11=Rs.6,60,000/- towards loss of dependency; 2. Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses; 3. Rs.10,000 towards consortium to the first claimant; 4. Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection to the 2nd and 3rd claimants; 5. Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses respectively; This Court awards a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- after deducting initial compensation a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- this Court awards Rs.4,20,000/- as additional compensation to the claimants which is adequate and being fair and justifiable. The first claimant is apportioned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, 2nd and 3rd claimants Rs.1,10,000/- each. The above mentioned additional compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, hence this Court directs the State Transport Corporation/respondent to comply with this Court order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by depositing the amount. 16. 16. It is now open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount fixed by this Court with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, FTC, Vellore, after filing a memo along with this order. 17. In the result, this Civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, FTC, Vellore, dated 28.01.2009 is modified. There is no order as to costs.