Judgment 1. The appellant/respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.285 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who were the parents of the deceased Mahadevan, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.285 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the respondent for the death of their son Mahadevan in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 03.08.2003, at about 03.00 p.m., when the deceased Mahadevan was riding the Boxer CT Motorcycle along with his friend one Needidevan as a pillion rider and when they were proceeding near Anaivari Odai, situated in the Ariyalur-Thittakudi road, near Thungapuram Village, the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0995, which was coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, came on to the right side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased Mahadevan and Needidevan were thrown out of the vehicle and sustained injuries. They were taken to Ariyalur Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given and subsequently referred to Thanjavur medical College Hospital for treatment. The deceased Mahadevan succumbed to his injuries, while being taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years and was working as a fireman in Perambalur Fire Service Station and earning a sum of Rs.4,482/-per month. Hence, the petitioners had filed the claim petition against the Corporation. 4. The respondent Corporation had filed a counter statement and submitted that on 03.08.2003, the driver of the bus had driven the bus bearing registration No.TN32 N0995 from Thittakudi to Ariyalur in a careful and cautious manner and that at about 15.15 hours when the bus was near Kodipalayam Village, he had seen that the motorcycle was coming in the opposite direction and ridden by it's rider at a high speed and in a reckless manner. On seeing the motorcycle coming to the right side of the road, the bus driver had sounded horn and switched the lights on and off to warn the motorcyclist and had subsequently applied brakes and turned the bus and again turned it further to the left side of the road. But, in spite of it, the motorcyclist had dashed it against the front right side bumper of the bus and caused the accident. Further, they had stated that the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid licence to ride the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were not able to be admitted. Further, the claim was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: i. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent Corporation bus? ii. What is the quantum of compensation, which the claimants are entitled to get? and iii. To what further relief they are entitled to get? 6. In the same accident, another claim petition had been filed by the injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.284 of 2003 claiming a compensation from the said respondent for the injuries sustained by him and on the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in M.C.O.P.No.284 of 2003. 7. 7. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.284 of 2003 namely Needhidevan was examined as P.W.1, the first claimant in M.C.O.P.No.285 of 2003 was examined as P.W.2, one Pattusami was examined as P.W.3 and one Dr.Saravanan was examined as P.W.4 and 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25 namely FIR, wound certificate of Needhidevan, medical bills pertaining to Needhidevan, school transfer certificate of Needhidevan, degree certificate of Needhidevan, driving licence of Needhidevan, postmortem report of Mahadevan, school certificate of Mahadevan, legal heir certificate, driving licence of Mahadevan, sports certificate of Mahadevan, ID card of Mahadevan, computer course certificate of Mahadevan, appointment order of Mahadevan, salary certificate of Mahadevan, certificates issued by Fire Department, ID card of Mahadevan, trip sheet of contract vehicles, paper publications, rough sketch, disability certificate of Needhidevan, discharge summary, discharge summary issued at Thanjavur Medical College and X'rays. On the side of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and the salary certificate of the deceased Mahadevan was marked as Ex.R1. 8. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statement made in their claim regarding manner of accident and in support of their evidence, they had marked Exs.P1 to P25. On scrutiny of Ex.P1 it is seen that the complaint regarding the accident had been given by one Chidambaram and based on his complaint, FIR had been registered against the respondent Corporation bus driver. It had been mentioned in the FIR that while the said Chidambaram was proceeding on his cycle near the place of occurrence of the accident, he had seen the deceased Mahadevan riding his motorcycle along with his friend Needhidevan as pillion rider and that they were proceeding on the left side of the road and that the respondent's bus coming in the opposite direction had been driven in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. 9. R.W.1 driver of the bus had adduced evidence that when he was driving the bus, he had seen the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a negligent manner and that on seeing this he had switched the light on and off to sound a warning and also stopped the bus. But, in spite of it, the motorcyclist had dashed the vehicle on the right side front bumper of the bus and caused the accident. 10. But, in spite of it, the motorcyclist had dashed the vehicle on the right side front bumper of the bus and caused the accident. 10. The Tribunal, however observed that the driver of the bus had not given any complaint at the Police Station, to prove his contentions. The Tribunal had further observed that the respondent had not examined any passenger, who travelled in the bus to prove their contentions. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent Corporation bus and hence held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 11. P.W.2 had further adduced evidence that his son was aged 21 years and was working in the Fire Service Department, Perambalur and earning Rs.4,482/- per month and that he had done correspondence course at Annamalai University and that he had also received an Award for working at Nehru Yuvakendra and in support of his evidence he had marked Exs.P7 to P21. On scrutiny of Ex.P8 it is seen that the deceased was aged 23 years. 12. P.W.3 had adduced evidence that the deceased was working in Fire Service Station at Perambalur and earning a sum of Rs.4,482/-per month as salary. On scrutiny of Ex.P15 it is seen that the deceased was earning Rs.4,482/- per month. 13. The Tribunal, on deducting Rs.1,482/-for the personal expenses, if the deceased had that earning he could have contributed Rs.3,000/-to his family. The Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 17, as was relevant to the age of the petitioners, awarded a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income (3,000 X 12 X 17), Rs.2,000/- was awarded under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- was awarded under the head of loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,500/-as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondent to deposit the same together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation with costs, within a period of two months from the date of it's Order. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 15. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in their appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the driver of the appellant Corporation was driving the bus slowly and cautiously at the time of the accident. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was a bachelor while assessing loss of income to the claimants. It is contended further that the Tribunal had erred in adopting a multiplier of 17 and ought to have taken appropriate multiplier by taking into account the age of the mother, while assessment of the compensation. Further, it is contended that the Award passed by the Tribunal is excessive and hence it is prayed to set aside the same. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants have submitted that FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus. Further, the driver of the bus had driven the bus in a negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle had expired and for which the claimants had filed the claim petition. The deceased possessed a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The deceased was a fireman attached to the Divisional Fire Office, Perambalur. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided the compensation on the basis of age, income and occupation of the deceased. The Tribunal had not granted compensation under the head of loss of love and affection and transport. The award of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses is also on the lower side. 17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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 Tribunal had decided the above three issues on the strength of FIR, salary certificate, educational qualifications, employment and income. Therefore, this Court does not find enough force in the appeal to allow it. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 18. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had decided the above three issues on the strength of FIR, salary certificate, educational qualifications, employment and income. Therefore, this Court does not find enough force in the appeal to allow it. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 18. This Court had already directed the appellant Corporation to deposit the entire compensation amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.285 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur and on such deposit having been made the claimants were permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount. Now, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.285 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 19. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.285 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.