Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.13,87,000/- awarded for the death of G. Sivasankar in road traffic accident on 24.7.2002, Appellant-Transport Corporation filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 24.7.2002 at about 4.10 P.M., deceased Sivasankar was proceeding in his Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-29 E 8013 towards Dharmapuri on Krishnagiri-Dharmapuri NH 7 road. When the deceased was nearing Sapthagiri Juice Factory, between Karimangalam and Periyampatti, the Appellant-Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-29 N 0885 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased and that the deceased was thrown away. Due to the impact, Sivasankar sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, Sivasankar was taken to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri where he was referred to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and Sivasankar had taken treatment from 24.7.2002 to 26.07.2022 as inpatient and succumbed to the injuries on 26.7.2002. Deceased was agriculturist and also doing contract work in Public Works Department and Panchayat Union and stated to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Regarding the accident, a Criminal Case was registered against the Appellant-Transport Corporation Bus driver in Crime No.878 of 2002 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC of Karimangalam Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Appellant-Transport Corporation Bus driver, the Claimants who are wife, sons and parents of the deceased have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Transport Corporation filed the counter contending that on 24.7.2002, the driver of Appellant-Transport Corporation drove the bus very slowly, cautiously keeping to the extreme left side of the road. It is averred that when the bus was proceeding in between Periyampatti-Karimangalam, near Sapthagiri Juice Factory, the deceased who was proceeding in the Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-29 E 8013 in a rash and reckless manner, without observing the rules suddenly started to cross the road and the driver of the bus applied brake to avoid hit against the motorcycle. But before ever the bus could come to a stop, the deceased came and contact with the bus and sustained injuries and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased. Appellant-Transport Corporation also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. But before ever the bus could come to a stop, the deceased came and contact with the bus and sustained injuries and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased. Appellant-Transport Corporation also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Nagarani examined herself as P.W.1. Eye-witness (Sampath) was examined as P.W.2. Junior Assistant (Manoharan) in Block Development Office, Karimangalam was examined as P.W.3. Junior Assistant (Subramaniam) in Panchayat Union Office, Karimangalam was examined as P.W.4. Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of Claimants. The driver of Appellant-Transport Corporation bus (Samundi) was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on the side of Appellant-Transport Corporation. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Appellant-Transport Corporation bus driver and that Appellant-Transport Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants. Taking monthly income at Rs.7000/- and deducting one-third for personal expenses and adopting multiplier "17", Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.9,52,000/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,87,000/- as under:- Loss of dependency ... Rs. 9,52,000.00 Medical expenses ... Rs. 15,000.00 Damages to cloths and articles ... Rs. 5,000.00 Transport charges ... Rs. 5,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of consortium ... Rs. 2,00,000.00 Love and affection ... Rs. 50,000.00 Pain and suffering and mental agony ... Rs. 25,000.00 Loss of expectation of life ... Rs. 1,00,000.00 Loss of estate ... Rs. 25,000.00 Total ... Rs.13,87,000.00 6. Even though in the counter as well as in the Memorandum of Appeal, Appellant-Transport Corporation raised objection as to the manner of accident, during the course of hearing the appeal, the learned counsel for Appellant confined his argument only with regard to quantum of compensation. Referring to Ex.P1-F.I.R. and the evidence of P.W.2-eye witness, Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Appellant-Transport Corporation bus driver and the said finding of the Tribunal is unassailable warranting no interference. Main challenge in this appeal is only the quantum of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for Appellant-Transport Corporation contended that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7000/-per month and that the loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal is excessive. Main challenge in this appeal is only the quantum of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for Appellant-Transport Corporation contended that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7000/-per month and that the loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal is excessive. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads is also on higher side. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for Claimants contended that Claimants have adduced evidence to show that at the time of accident deceased Sivasankar was doing contract work and was earning Rs.84,000/-per annum. Learned counsel for Claimants would contend that the compensation of Rs.13,87,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and the same may be confirmed. 9. We have perused the evidence and materials on record and also considered the rival submissions. 10. Upon consideration of rival submissions, the point falling for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation of Rs.13,87,000/-awarded by the Tribunal warrants interference. 11. Quantum of compensation -In her evidence, P.W.1 stated that at the time of accident, her husband was doing contract work in Public Works Department and also in Block Development Office and was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. P.W.1 would state that her husband was also an agriculturist. P.W.1 produced Exs.P9 and P10 documents to show that her husband was a registered Contractor. P.W.1 would further state had her husband been alive, he would have brought up the Claimants 2 and 3 in a better position and that the family had lost the sole bread winner. 12. To prove that the deceased Sivasankar was a Contractor, Claimants have examined P.W.3-Manoharan, Junior Assistant in Block Development Office, Karimangalam and P.W.4-Subramaniam, Junior Assistant in Karimangalam Panchayat Union. In his evidence, P.W.3 stated that deceased had given application to include his name as Contractor and that deceased name was included in the Contractor list. Ex.P9 is the order appointing the Sivasankar as the approved Contractor by Karimangalam Village Panchayat. P.W.3 would further state that Sivasankar had done the contract work for two years and that till his death, he had done the contract work. 13. In his evidence, P.W.4 stated that for the contract work done, Sivasankar had received payment of Rs.1,77,498/- on 5.6.2002, Rs.67,665/- on 7.6.2002, Rs.64,063/-on 24.3.2003, Rs.57,267/- on 1.1.2003, Rs.82,653/- on 4.9.2003, Rs.49,914/-on 6.9.2003, Rs.85,926/- on 16.9.2003, Rs.1,31,520 on 31.3.2003 and Rs.85,601/-on 3.1.2003 respectively. 14. 13. In his evidence, P.W.4 stated that for the contract work done, Sivasankar had received payment of Rs.1,77,498/- on 5.6.2002, Rs.67,665/- on 7.6.2002, Rs.64,063/-on 24.3.2003, Rs.57,267/- on 1.1.2003, Rs.82,653/- on 4.9.2003, Rs.49,914/-on 6.9.2003, Rs.85,926/- on 16.9.2003, Rs.1,31,520 on 31.3.2003 and Rs.85,601/-on 3.1.2003 respectively. 14. Learned counsel for Appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that Exs.P9 and P10 documents relate to a particular period and that the same cannot form basis for fixing the income at Rs.7000/- per month. Learned counsel would further contend that compensation awarded for loss of earnings/contribution to the family is very much on the higher side. 15. By perusal of Ex.P9, it is seen that the application given by the deceased to the Commissioner, Karimangalam Panchayat requesting to include the name of Sivasankar as Contractor has been approved by the Panchayat Council and that by the Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3723/2000/A3 dated 24.8.2000, Sivasankar was appointed as Contractor in Karimangalam Panchayat Union. By perusal of Ex.P10-Form of work order, it is seen that Sivasankar had undertaken the contract work from Block Development Office, Karimangalam for construction of combined Health Centre for Women and Children in Keezhkollupatti, Adilam, Kittampatti, Jaggasamudram and Molappanahalli. Considering the work done by Sivasankar, had he been alive, over the years he would have worked hard and further developed his contract work and would have earned more income. Going by his contract work and the experience, in our considered view, the monthly income of Rs.7000/- taken by the Tribunal is very reasonable and the same is maintained. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 31 years and that Tribunal adopted multiplier "17". Adopting multiplier "17" and deducting one-third for personal expenses, Tribunal calculated the "loss of dependency" at Rs.9,52,000/- and the same is maintained. 16. Conventional damages – Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for "medical expenses". After the accident, deceased was admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri where from he was taken to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and had taken treatment from 24.7.2002 to 26.7.2002 and succumbed to injuries on 26.7.2002. During the period of treatment, necessarily deceased would have spent medical expenses and that Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "medical expenses" is maintained. 17. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for "damages to clothes and articles", Rs.5,000/-for "transport charges" and Rs.10,000/- for "funeral expenses", Rs.50,000/- for "love and affection" and Rs.25,000/- for "loss of estate" are quite reasonable and the same are maintained. 18. 17. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for "damages to clothes and articles", Rs.5,000/-for "transport charges" and Rs.10,000/- for "funeral expenses", Rs.50,000/- for "love and affection" and Rs.25,000/- for "loss of estate" are quite reasonable and the same are maintained. 18. Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for "loss of consortium". 1st Claimant is aged 25 years at the time of accident. Though 1st Claimant lost her husband at her young age of 25 years, in our considered view, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "loss of consortium" is on the higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 19. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for "loss of expectation of life" and Rs.25,000/-for "pain and suffering and mental agony caused to the Claimants". Normally, in death cases, compensation for "loss of expectation of life" and compensation for "pain and suffering and mental agony to the legal representatives/Claimants" would not arise and therefore, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-awarded for "loss of expectation of life" and Rs.25,000/- awarded for "pain and suffering and mental agony to the Claimants" are set aside. Thus the total compensation of Rs.13,87,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.11,62,000/- as under:- Loss of dependency ... Rs. 9,52,000.00 Medical expenses ... Rs. 15,000.00 Damages to cloths and articles ... Rs. 5,000.00 Transport charges ... Rs. 5,000.00 Funeral expenses ... Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of consortium ... Rs. 1,00,000.00 Loss of love and affection ... Rs. 50,000.00 Loss of estate ... Rs. 25,000.00 Total ... Rs.11,62,000.00 The reduced compensation of Rs.11,62,000/-is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1 to 5 as follows:- 1st Claimants 1 to 3 entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- each and Claimants 4 and 5 entitled to Rs.1,31,000/-each. Tribunal ordered interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the same is maintained. 20. In the result, the compensation of Rs.13,87,000/-awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.233 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Krishnagiri is reduced to Rs.11,62,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Petition till the date of deposit and the appeal is partly allowed. It was stated before us that Appellant-Transport Corporation has deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.233 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Krishnagiri. Claimants 1,4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw the reduced compensation along with accrued interest apportioned to them immediately after the receipt of copy of this Judgment. It was stated before us that Appellant-Transport Corporation has deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.233 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Krishnagiri. Claimants 1,4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw the reduced compensation along with accrued interest apportioned to them immediately after the receipt of copy of this Judgment. The compensation amount in respect of minor Claimants 2 and 3 is ordered to be invested in anyone of the nationalised bank till they attain majority. 1st Claimant-mother is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank. Appellant-Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the excess amount with proportionate interest, if any deposited. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.