JUDGMENT :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2002, dated 18.03.2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 02.01.2002, the deceased Dinesh Kumar was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing Registration No.TN38-N-0109 which was proceeding from Aravind Eye Hospital to Kalapatti. When the said town bus stopped at Mahindra Engineering Company bus stop, the deceased got down to enable other passengers in the bus to alight. After the passengers alighted while the deceased Dinesh Kumar was in the process of boarding the bus, the conductor of the bus, without noticing the passengers getting in, blew his whistle and the driver of the bus started the bus immediately in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased Dinesh Kumar fell from the upper step of the said bus. Due to the alarm raised by the passengers, the driver of the bus stopped the bus after proceeding forward for a short distance. As a result of the fall, the deceased Dinesh Kumar sustained injuries to his head and right hand and abrasion all over his body. He was admitted at United Apollo Hospital, Coimbatore for treatment but in spite of best treatment, he died on 04.01.2002. Hence the petitioners, who are the legal-heirs of the deceased have filed a claim for Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondents. The first respondent in the Conductor, the second respondent is the driver and the third respondent is the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TN38-N-0109. 3. The third respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim and denied the averments in the claim regarding manner of accident. It was stated that when the said bus was on its way from Saibaba Colony towards Kalapatti, in its 2.55 p.m., trip, the bus was stopped at Mahendra Bus stop at about 3.45 p.m. As there were a huge crowds of passengers at the stop, a student attempted to travel in the bus by holding on the handle in the rear foot steps of the bus, but while trying to board the bus, he fell down. The boy did not feel the impact of his fall on his head at that time and appeared to have taken the fall in a light hearted manner. It was only on 03.01.2002, after the boy had felt pain in his head, he was admitted in United Apollo Hospital, where they found that a blood clot had developed in his head due to the fall. As such it was stated that the driver and conductor of the bus had not been negligent and that it was only the adventurous nature of the boy which had caused the accident. It was also stated that the claim was excessive. 4. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i) Who is liable to pay compensation? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?” 5. On the petitioners side three witness were examined and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and one document was marked as Ex.R1. 6. PW3, the eyewitness of the accident adduced evidence that he had seen the accident and had deposed that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the first and second respondents. RW1, the driver of the bus had adduced evidence that the accident had not been caused due to any negligence on his part and in support of his evidence had marked Ex.R1, the judgment copy of Criminal Court. From a scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 had been acquitted in the criminal case filed against them for lack of evidence. However, the Tribunal were of the view that no conclusive findings have been laid out to refute the accident or to that the vehicle was not responsible for the cause of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal, after scrutiny of evidence of PW2 and documentary exhibits P1 to P5 held that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the first and second respondents and hence the third respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 7. From scrutiny of Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, it is seen that the (deceased) was a student in Krishnaswamy Memorial Higher Secondary School and that his age was 17 years as per Ex.P5. 7. From scrutiny of Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, it is seen that the (deceased) was a student in Krishnaswamy Memorial Higher Secondary School and that his age was 17 years as per Ex.P5. Hence, the Tribunal on holding that the notional income of a student could be taken as Rs.1,500/- and adopting a multiplier of ‘17’ awarded a compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- (Rs.1,500/- x 1/3 x 2 x 12 x 17) as compensation to the petitioners. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P6 (medical bills) and Rs.10,000/- each to the first and second petitioners towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the first, second and third respondents to jointly and severally deposit the said award with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit, within one month from the date of its order. 8. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Division - I, Coimbatore, has filed the present appeal to set-aside the award passed. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was attempting to get down and to getup a moving bus and that the driver had been acquitted in the criminal case. It was also pointed out that the multiplier of ‘17’ was adopted taking into account only the age of the deceased and not of the claimants. It was contended that Tribunal had erroneously fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- and so the award of Rs.2,44,000/- was excessive. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased was aged about 17 years and before the accident, the deceased was studying in the X Standard, he was an active and brilliant student. Even though, he was a non-earning member, the compensation amount granted under the head of love and affection and funeral expenses are on the lower side. 11. Even though, he was a non-earning member, the compensation amount granted under the head of love and affection and funeral expenses are on the lower side. 11. 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 compensation amount awarded is slightly on the higher side. Therefore, this Court modifies the compensation as follows:- Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 15) towards loss income to the petitioners; Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection; Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; In total, this Court awards Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment compensation as it is found to be fair and justifiable. 12. On 16.06.2009, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited to deposit a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore. Now, this Court directs the appellant / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited to deposit the balance compensation amount with interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their compensation amount equally amongst them with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.227 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13. 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.227 of 2002, dated 18.03.2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.