Judgment : The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2007, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased D.Padmashree, had filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai, claiming a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- from the respondent for the death of the said Padmashree in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 18.11.1997, at about 08.30 hours, when the deceased person, was travelling as a pillion rider in the scooter bearing registration No.TN22 B3381, driven by the brother of the deceased, from Chrompet to Pallavaram and when it was proceeding on G.S.T.Road, near Pallavaram, and when it was passing through the rainwater ditch, the pillion rider lost her balance and fell down. At that time, the respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0068, which was coming from behind and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the pillion rider of the scooter and as a result of which, she had sustained grievous injuries and died while being taken to the hospital. At the time of accident, the deceased Padmashree was aged 28 years and working as an Executive Engineer in GEC Alstom (India) Ltd., Pallavaram and earning Rs.14,270/-per month. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondent Transport Corporation. 4. The respondent Transport Corporation had filed their counter statement and denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased and also the manner of accident. It was submitted that on the date of accident, when the respondent's bus was nearing English Electronic Company, near Pallavaram at G.S.T.Road, he had seen a scooterist proceeding on his scooter bearing registration No.TN22 B3381, along with his sister and that as he was talking with his sister, he failed to notice the pit on the road and drove his scooter into the pit and that as a result the pillion rider had fallen down and sustained severe injuries. It was submitted that the bus driver, on seeing this, had stopped the bus. It was submitted that the bus driver, on seeing this, had stopped the bus. Though a case was registered against this respondent's driver, he was acquitted from the said case. 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 deceased met with the road traffic accident that happened on 18.11.1997, involving the bus bearing registration No.TN21 N0068? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? and iii. To what other relief are the claimants entitled to get? 6. On the claimants' side, four witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13 namely pay slip, copy of FIR, copy of rough sketch, legalheir certificate, B.E.Degree certificate, diploma in management certificate, postgraduate certificate, postmortem certificate, company name change certificate, authorization letter, identity card of the deceased, salary certificate, income tax returns and passport copy. On the respondent's side, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1, the second petitioner and father of the deceased, had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim petition regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence he had marked Exs.P1 to P13. 8. P.W.2 Srinivasan, eye-witness of the accident, had adduced evidence that on 18.11.1997, at about 09.00 clock in the morning, when he was standing on G.S.T.Road, Pallavaram, near English Electricals Company, in order to cross the road, he had seen the bus on the Route No.14, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a motorcycle from behind and that as a result, both the rider and the pillion rider had fallen down and that the pillion rider had sustained grievous injuries and died. 9. P.W.4, Head Constable, had also adduced evidence that the respondent's bus driver was responsible for the accident. 10. R.W.1 driver of the bus had adduced evidence that on 18.11.1997, at about 05.30 a.m., when he was driving the bus on it's trip from Vandavasi to Chennai and when the bus was proceeding on G.S.T.Road, Pallavaram, the pillion rider of the scooter proceeding ahead of him had suddenly fallen down and that on seeing this, he had applied brakes and stopped the bus. He deposed that on seeing the woman, lying unconscious on the ground, he had arranged for an auto to get her admitted at the nearest hospital. He had however admitted that a criminal case was filed against him and that he was acquitted in the said case. 11. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P2 FIR and Ex.P3 copy of rough sketch, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus. 12. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, it is seen that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P12 salary certificate, it is seen that the deceased was drawing a basic pay of Rs.5,720/-per month at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P13, it is seen that income tax returns for the assessment year of April 1999 to March 2000, had been shown as Rs.55,935/-. Hence, the Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.5,000/-per month. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of 18 and after deducting 1/3rd of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.7,12,800/-as compensation to the claimants under the head of loss of income (5,000/- X 2/3 X 18), Rs.5,000/-was awarded under the head of mental agony and shock, Rs.5,000/-was awarded for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,24,800/-as compensation to the claimants and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum along with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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. 13. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased had died in the accident, due to negligence of the scooterist, who did not notice the pit on the road, as he was talking with his sister and that due to this, the deceased had lost her balance and fallen down on the road, sustaining injuries. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of R.W.1 regarding manner of accident. It is contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and the award granted under the various heads are excessive and without any basis. Hence, it is prayed to set aside or modify the award passed by the Tribunal. 15. The highly competent counsel for the claimants has submitted that the deceased was aged about 28 years and was working as an Executive Engineer in GEC Alstom (India) Ltd., and was earning Rs.14,270/-per month. FIR had been registered against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of income, age, FIR, rough sketch and dependency. However, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads namely loss of earning, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. 16. On verifying 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 deceased was aged about 28 years and she was working as an Engineer earning Rs.14,270/- per month and in order to prove the same, the salary certificate and income tax returns had been filed. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side considering that the dependents are the aged parents of the deceased. 17. This Court had already directed the appellant Transport Corporation to deposit a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- together with proportionate interest thereon to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai and the claimants were also permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective share in the award amount with proportionate interest and costs, without furnishing security, lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai. 18. 18. Now, this Court directs the appellant Transport Corporation to execute the Award passed by the Tribunal, by way of depositing the balance compensation amount, with interest, to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 19. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with interest, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, subject to the deduction of earlier withdrawals made by the claimants, as per this Court's earlier order, lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. 20. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 19.06.2007, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4257 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court No.III), Chennai, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs.