JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN38 N 1168 and the consequential liability to pay compensation of Rs.5,68,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5%, awarded to the husband, two daughters and son respectively, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Division No.I, has preferred this appeal. 2. Short facts of the case are as follows: That on 21.05.2009 at 7.00 hours, when the wife of the 1st respondent, was travelling in a bus bearing Regn.No.TN38 N 1168, the bus stopped at Thimmampalayam Bus Stop, Karamadai. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that when, she was alighting through the front entrance, RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, without noticing her, started the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Though she was treated in CMC Hospital, Kovai and provided intensive treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. A case in crime No.249/2009 has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus for offence under Section 304(A) IPC by Karamadai Police. According to the respondents, the deceased was aged 35 years and as an agricultural coolie earned Rs.150/- per day. 3. Opposing the claim, the Transport Corporation in its counter affidavit has submitted that the vehicle was taken on trip at 5.30pm on 21.05.2009 and about 7 pm, when the bus was nearing Thimmampalayam bus stop, the bus was driven slowly and cautiously, keeping to the left side of the road. While negotiating a speed breaker, which was 3 metres ahead of Thimmampalayam bus stop, some of the passengers shouted to stop the bus, since a lady had jumped out from the moving bus. On hearing the same, the driver applied sudden brakes and stopped the bus. Thereafter, the crew arranged to admit the injured, in Government Hospital, Mettupalayam. According to the Corporation, it was the victim who invited the accident, while attempting to get down from a moving bus, even before the bus was stopped in Thimmampalayam bus stop. On the above facts the Corporation disputed the manner of accident. Without prejudice to the above, the Transport Corporation also disputed the avocation, age and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 4. Before the claims tribunal, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants. On the above facts the Corporation disputed the manner of accident. Without prejudice to the above, the Transport Corporation also disputed the avocation, age and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 4. Before the claims tribunal, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants. PW1, is the husband of the deceased. According to him, at Thimmampalayam bus stop, while his wife was alighting from the bus, without noticing her, the driver started the bus in a rash and negligent manner and in the result, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P1, is the FIR. 5. Though, Mr. S.S. Swaminathan, learned counsel for the appellant, Transport Corporation has contended that the tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that except Ex.P1, FIR, no other document has been filed to support the version of the respondents/claimants and though, he has also contended that the claims tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the above said contentions for the reason that it is a settled law that the proceedings before the claims tribunal are summary in nature. The version of the respondents/claimants is corroborated by Ex.P1, FIR. Whereas, the contention of the Transport Corporation that while negotiating speed breaker, three meters ahead of Thimmampalayam bus stop, the deceased jumped out of the moving bus is not supported by any independent witness. Even as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the driver had not seen the victim jumping out of the moving bus. As per the corporation's case, the driver stopped the bus after hearing the alarm. Admittedly, he has not seen the victim alighting from a moving bus. According to him, on hearing the alarm, he stopped the bus. It is a hearsay evidence. Much credence cannot be given to a hearsay evidence, when it lacks corroboration of any doubt or supported by independent witness. In such circumstances, in the absence of examining any passenger or any independent witness to substantiate the contention of negligence on the part of the deceased, the finding recorded by the claims tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis or for the matter the claims tribunal cannot be said to have erred in not appreciating the evidence of RW1 in proper perspective. In the light of the above, the finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the State Transport Corporation, cannot be said to be a failure of justice. Hence the finding is confirmed. 6. Though the quantum of compensation, has been assailed as excessive, perusal of the award shows that the claims tribunal taking into consideration the avocation, agricultural coolie, fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. The deceased was stated to be aged 35 years at the time of accident. The accident has occurred on 21.05.2009. Considering the wages, earned by a coolie, in the year 2009, the determination of monthly income cannot be said to be grossly excessive. After deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and by applying 16' multiplier, the tribunal has computed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.5,12,000/-. In addition to the above, the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.40,000/-under the head loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000/- each claimants), Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/-for transportation. There is no award under the head loss of estate and damages to clothes. The method adopted for computation of compensation to the dependents cannot be said as arbitrary. Hence the quantum of compensation is also confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 7. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division (No.1), Coimbatore is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of MCOP No.907 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tirupur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, as apportioned by the tribunal, by making necessary applications. The share of the minors/2 to 4 respondents shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks in fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme initially for a period of three years and renewable thereafter. The interest accruing on the share of the minors/2 to 4 respondents shall be paid to the 1st respondent/father of the minors once in three months, till they attain majority.