Judgment :- 1. In this appeal, the Transport Corporation disputes the negligence question and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when the Tribunal rejected the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, it ought not to have fastened negligence on the bus driver. Further, the Tribunal had ignored the deductions and taken into account the entire gross salary of the deceased. This has resulted in granting excessive compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the non-examination of the conductor tells upon the Corporation's case. The Tribunal had taken correct income and calculated the eligible compensation amount. 4. At the time of accident, R.W.1 Murthy had driven the bus. Just before the bus-stop, the deceased was thrown out from the rear side entry gate and lost his life. The complaint has been lodged as against the bus driver. In view of the vacillating evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal had rightly rejected his evidence. The F.I.R. depicts the manner of accident. R.W.1, the driver cannot speak about the accident that had taken place on the rear side of the bus. The bus conductor has not been examined. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of accident, the deceased was drunk. This has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal for paucity of medical evidence. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had fixed the negligence on the bus driver. We concur with this. 5. The deceased was a Lineman. As per his salary certificate, lastly he received Rs.6,185/- p.m. After deduction, he had received Rs.4,415/-. The Tribunal also taken note of subsequent increase in salary due to periodical increment. The Tribunal had taken the entire gross salary and arrived at the compensation. The last salary, less statutory deductions such as income tax have to be considered. There is no proof that the deceased lineman was paying income tax. Considering the extent of salary, his case could not also come under income tax net. The Tribunal took the multiplier 11'. At the time of accident, he was aged 50 years. The deceased held a stable job in a public sector undertaking. The Tribunal had taken note of this aspect and took Rs.6,185/-per month. We don't find any flaw in it. 6. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. At the time of accident, he was aged 50 years. The deceased held a stable job in a public sector undertaking. The Tribunal had taken note of this aspect and took Rs.6,185/-per month. We don't find any flaw in it. 6. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. The appellant shall deposit the entire compensation amount, less amount, if any already deposited. Now, the 4th respondent had attained majority, all the claimants shall be paid their amount as allocated by the Tribunal. No costs.