Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, against the award and decree dated 18.08.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 11.03.2003, the first claimant's husband Murthy was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN22 C 0432 on the Tiruvannamalai Main Road, on the left side of the road and when he was nearing Inam Karianthal Village and at that point of time the second respondent's departmental vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 37 G 0231, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on the said direction and dashed against the deceased's motorcycle, resulting that he succumbed to his injuries, hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition against the respondents for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest. 3. The second respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The second respondent denied the accident which was committed by the driver of the vehicle. The respondent stated that on 11.03.2003 at about 11.45 am, the driver of the vehicle had driven the fire brigade vehicle with due care and caution to attend a fire extinguishing operation, while the vehicle was proceeding towards Tiruvannamalai, when at the time the deceased had attempted to overtake the ongoing bus without noticing the alarm signal given by the fire brigade and dashed against the respondent's vehicle. The age, income and occupation of the deceased are denied. 4. On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues, namely; “(i) Was the first respondent who committed the accident, driving in a rash and negligent manner? (ii) Who is liable to pay compensation to the claimant? (iii) If the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so what is the quantum of compensation?” 5. On the side of the claimants two witnesses had been examined and five documents were marked. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined nor any document was marked. PW1 stated that she is the wife of the deceased, claimants 2 to 4 are children of the deceased and claimants 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined nor any document was marked. PW1 stated that she is the wife of the deceased, claimants 2 to 4 are children of the deceased and claimants 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. PW1 further stated that on 11.03.2003 at around 11.45 am, she was standing in front of the house while her husband was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Tiruvannamalai, at that time the respondent's fire brigade vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist, the same was witnessed by PW2-Lakshmanan, who spoke in one voice. In order to prove the accident she had marked FIR, Postmortem Report. She further stated that the deceased's age was 40 years and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month through “Bore Well agency”. In order to prove the age of the deceased, she had marked the educational qualification certificate. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%. 7. Aggrieved by the said award the appellant has filed the above appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the said accident the deceased's vehicle was also involved , who was the cause for the accident. Actually, the deceased had attempted to overtake the ongoing bus without noticing the fire brigade vehicle, as such, the accident was invited by the deceased. The learned counsel further argued that there was no income proof for the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the respondent's fire brigade vehicle came in the opposite direction in a reckless manner and dashed against the motorcyclist. The FIR was registered against the driver of the respondent's vehicle. The claimants are six in numbers, comprising the young wife, three minor children and aged parents. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/5th instead of the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased. The income of the deceased is Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.3,000/-. 10. The claimants are six in numbers, comprising the young wife, three minor children and aged parents. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/5th instead of the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased. The income of the deceased is Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.3,000/-. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments submitted by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- for the 42 years old deceased as the sole breadwinner. Therefore, this Court's considered opinion that the claimants 2 to 4 are minors, they were not granted compensation under the head of 'love and affection. Funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- Consortium Rs.5,000/- to the first claimant are on the lower side. Therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the impugned decision of the Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003, dated 18.08.2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, hence, the award is confirmed. 11. On 16.03.2007, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest and cost to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai. Now it is open to the claimants to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003, after filing necessary payment out of application in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any made already. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003, dated 18.08.2005 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.