JUDGMENT:- 1. This appeal has been filed against the award and decree passed in MCOP No.4824 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, dated 16.12.2004. 2. The respondents/claimants have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their son P. Dakshinamurthy. The case of the respondents/claimants is that on 10.9.1999 at about 9.00 A.M., when the deceased was travelling in the passenger stage carriage bus of the appellant/respondent in O.P., bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-1752, proceeding from Kundrathur to Madhanandhapuram, Chennai and while the stopping of the deceased came, the bus was stopped and he was getting down through the front footboard of the bus and at that time, the Conductor of the bus without caring that whether all the passengers got down or not, gave whistle to move the bus and the Driver in turn, started to move the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering to the human safety and in that process, the deceased who was getting down from the bus, lost the grip and was thrown out of the vehicle and the back wheel of the bus ran over the deceased as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over the body and died on the spot and the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant/respondent transport corporation and the age of the deceased is 23 years and he was working as tailor and casual worker and earned Rs.2,000/-per month and the claimants are parents of the deceased and hence they claimed a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 3. On the side of the appellant/respondent in O.P., it was contended before the Tribunal that the deceased, a footboard passenger, travelled in the bus in over hanging manner without minding to the advice of the crew and when the bus was nearing the junction of Kundrathur Road and Jayalakshmi Nagar, a non-stopping place, the deceased lost his grip and fell down on the road and sustained injuries and hence the deceased was only responsible for the accident and further, contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents/claimants, they have examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and on the side of the appellant/respondent, it has examined one witness as R.W.1 and not marked any document. 5. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence relied on either side and came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent's bus driver and therefore, the appellant/respondent is liable to pay compensation. 6. The appellant has not challenged the above said finding, but at the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that they only challenge the quantum of compensation awarded. Further, the evidence of P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the accident, and also Ex.P4, copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.P5, rough sketch, reveal that the accident has occurred as stated in the claim petition. The evidence of R.W.1 is not to be accepted since he has falsely deposed to escape from the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly discussed the above said aspect and finally held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent's bus driver. 7. As far as the award of compensation is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and taken the multiplier as 13 without any basis. Learned Counsel also contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the monthly income towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, the award passed for Rs.2,08,000/- for loss of income; Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.2,500/-for loss of life and for Rs.20,000/-for loss of love and affection is without any basis and the total compensation of Rs.2,32,500/-is also baseless and hence prayed for reduction of compensation. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that the Tribunal has discussed in detail all aspects and correctly fixed the compensation amount and therefore, there is no need to reduce the same. 9. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased is 23 years and the said fact was proved by Ex.P6 school certificate. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that the Tribunal has discussed in detail all aspects and correctly fixed the compensation amount and therefore, there is no need to reduce the same. 9. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased is 23 years and the said fact was proved by Ex.P6 school certificate. Further the oral evidence reveals that the age of the first claimant who is the father of the deceased, is 55 years and the second claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, is 49 years at the time of accident. With regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was a tailor and casual worker and therefore, fixed the monthly income as Rs.2,000/-. Considering the age and other factors, the above said monthly income fixed by the Tribunal, cannot be taken as excessive amount and therefore, the Tribunal has correctly fixed it as Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal also deducted 1/3rd and correctly taken the multiplier as 13 and therefore, the Tribunal has calculated the loss of income as Rs.16,000/- x 13 = Rs.2,08,000/-and the said finding is not to be interfered with. With regard to the other heads also, the Tribunal has correctly passed an award for Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/-each for love and affection and for Rs.2,500/- for loss of life and totally, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,32,500/-. As discussed earlier, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the award amount and rightly fixed the interest at 9% and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 10. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal, is confirmed and this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Both sides admitted that the award amount has already been deposited by the appellant/respondent transport corporation and 50% of the award amount has already been withdrawn by the respondents/claimants. The respondents, who are the claimants, are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount. No costs.