Judgment : 1. The claimants have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.785 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Vellore, against the appellant herein stating that on 07.10.2005, at about 9.15 p.m., when their son was travelling on the Bajaj Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-AA-1658, on the Katpadi Main Road, the appellant's Corporation bus, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, had dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. 2. The Transport Corporation has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus. Actually the bus was stopped at Vellore road at a junction, waiting for signal and at that time the rider of the motorcycle drove it at a high speed and dashed against the left side of the bus. The respondent further stated that the owner of the motorcycle and its Insurance company are necessary parties in the case, but they have not been impleaded. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus? And (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? 4. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P8 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Charge sheet; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P4-Accident claim form; Ex.P5-Postmortem report; Ex.P6-Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P7-Legal heir certificate; and Ex.P8-Transfer certificate. On the side of the respondent's, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. PW1 mother of the deceased had adduced evidence that when her son Jayapal was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-AA-1658, on the Katpadi Main road, the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-1356, driven by its driver in a negligent manner had dashed against her. PW1 further stated that her son was aged 21 years and he was working as a Canteen Supervisor in a private firm and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. PW2 had adduced evidence that he had witnessed the said accident and deposed that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the bus. PW1 further stated that her son was aged 21 years and he was working as a Canteen Supervisor in a private firm and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. PW2 had adduced evidence that he had witnessed the said accident and deposed that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the bus. RW1, the Conductor of bus had adduced evidence that the rider of the motorcycle had driven it in a negligent manner and dashed it against the bus. 7. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinising the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,000/-as compensation, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the bus had driven it in a moderate speed and in a cautious manner but the rider of the motorcycle had ridden it in a high speed in a negligent manner and dashed against the bus and the same was established through evidence of eyewitness namely Conductor of the bus. Further, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted for his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. 8. The very competent counsel for the claimants argued that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the bus and he was punished before the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. As such, the negligence and liability had been proved. The quantum of compensation is not on the higher side, as the deceased was aged about 21 years and working as Supervisor at a Canteen and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Both the claimants who are aged parents, have lost their only earning son in the said accident. 9. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the driver of the bus had been punished by the Criminal Court. It is also seen that the deceased was aged only 21 years at the time of accident and that he was the only earning member. This Court is of the further view that the driver of the bus had been punished by the Criminal Court. It is also seen that the deceased was aged only 21 years at the time of accident and that he was the only earning member. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded is reasonable. 10. This Court had directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with interest. Now, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their apportioned share amount with proportionate interest thereon, as per ratio fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.785 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court) Vellore District, Vellore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.785 of 2005, dated 11.01.2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court) Vellore District, Vellore, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.