JUDGMENT:- 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent as against the award and decree in MCOP No.902 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nagapattinam. 2. The claimants/respondents 1 to 4 have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of one Gurumurthy. The case of the claimants is that on 31.7.2000, the deceased was proceeding to Arasanvanangadu, Mayanapuram, Tiruvarur-Kudavasal Road and at that time, the bus of the appellant/respondent in O.P. bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-0802, proceeding from Tiruvarur to Kumbakonam, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the above said Gurumurthy and he died and therefore, the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the appellant/respondent transport corporation and the age of the deceased is 30 years and he was a vegetable vendor by profession and earning Rs.4,000/-per month and the claimants are wife, son and parents of the deceased respectively and therefore, they claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the appellant/respondent in O.P. 3. On the side of the appellant/respondent in O.P., it was contended before the Tribunal that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the appellant/respondent, but on 31.7.2000 at about 4.30 A.M., the bus of the appellant/respondent was driven by its driver and was proceeding from Tiruvarur to Kudavasal and when the bus reached Mayanapuram near Arasanavanangadu, the deceased who was carrying Brinjal in large quantity, came in a bicycle without light and on seeing the bus, he became panicky and unable to stop the cycle, but drove it helter skelter and fell down on the road, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died and therefore, the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant/respondent transport corporation. It also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants, they have examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and on the side of the appellant/respondent in O.P., it examined the driver of the bus, namely A. Selvam, as R.W.1 and not marked any documents. 5. 4. Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimants, they have examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and on the side of the appellant/respondent in O.P., it examined the driver of the bus, namely A. Selvam, as R.W.1 and not marked any documents. 5. The learned Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence on either side and discussed in detail and finally held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the appellant/respondent in O.P. and therefore, the appellant/respondent is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years as per Ex.P3, and the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd, the loss of income is fixed as Rs.2,88,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-for loss of love and affection and totally awarded Rs.3,10,000/- as compensation. 6. As against the above said award, the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross appeal and only the appellant/respondent transport corporation alone has filed this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased alone has driven the cycle carrying heavy load and that too in an imbalanced manner and met with an accident and the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of R.W.1. Learned Counsel further contended that the deceased had also equally contributed to the accident by his negligence and further, the claimants have not proved the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants has contended that with regard to the negligence, one Thiru T. Baskar, who was the eyewitness to the accident and also the complainant, was examined as P.W.2 on the side of the claimants and he has clearly deposed about the accident and the above said oral evidence of P.W.2 reveals that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant/respondent transport corporation. Learned Counsel further contended that in the F.I.R. given by P.W.2, it is clearly stated that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant/respondent and a perusal of Ex.P4, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, also reveals that the accident has occurred as stated in the claim petition and not as stated by the appellant/respondent transport corporation and on the side of the appellant/respondent, it examined only the alleged driver of its bus as R.W.1. 9. Admittedly, the F.I.R. has been filed as against R.W.1 and therefore, in order to escape from the criminal proceedings, R.W.1 has falsely deposed as if the accident has occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased. Considering both sides' oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the appellant/respondent transport corporation and the appellant/respondent is liable to pay compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years and the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.2,000/-per month and after deducting 1/3rd, the loss of income is fixed as Rs.2,88,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and totally, Rs.3,10,000/-was awarded as compensation. In the award itself, the Tribunal has made it clear that the first claimant is entitled to Rs.1,30,000/-, second claimant is entitled to Rs.1,10,000/-and the claimants 3 and 4 are each entitled to Rs.35,000/-. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant transport corporation has contended that the income of the deceased fixed as Rs.2,000/-per month, is excessive and further contended that the Tribunal awarded an excessive sum of Rs.22,000/- towards conventional damages and the award of interest at 12% is also excessive and therefore, prayed for reduction of compensation. 11. Admittedly, the age of the deceased is fixed as 30 years as per Ex.P3 postmortem certificate. The appellant/respondent has not seriously objected to the above said finding. With regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.2,000/- per month. 11. Admittedly, the age of the deceased is fixed as 30 years as per Ex.P3 postmortem certificate. The appellant/respondent has not seriously objected to the above said finding. With regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.2,000/- per month. Even according to the appellant/respondent, at the time of accident, the deceased was carrying Brinjal in large quantity and therefore, it is clear that he was doing business and the monthly income fixed as Rs.2,000/-, is not excessive as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent. The Tribunal has correctly applied 1/3rd multiplier and also awarded other amounts which are not excessive, and therefore, considering the age, dependency, avocation and income of the deceased and other factors, the Tribunal has passed a just and reasonable award and no interference is called for. 12. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal, is confirmed and this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.