Judgment : 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore, which figured as the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.124/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Erode is the appellant herein. The first respondent in the said MCOP was shown to be the 5th respondent in the appeal, but, by virtue of an endorsement, he was given up indicating that he was removed from the array of parties. As such, there are only four respondents. All the four respondents R1 to R4 in the civil miscellaneous appeal are the legal representatives of deceased Arichandran. Now the first respondent is no more and her legal representatives are already on record as respondents 2 to 4. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the MCOP No.124/2012 on the file of the above said Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation from the appellant herein being the owner of the offending bus bearing Regn.No.TN-33 N-2594 and P.Subramanian, the driver of the said vehicle. The said claim was made on the basis of the averment made in the claim petition that on 05.10.2011 at about 7.00 p.m, while the deceased Arichandran was walking along the Poondurai -Erode Main Road from North to South, the said bus, that came behind in the same direction hit him at a high speed resulting in grievous injuries to the said Arichandran, which ultimately proved to be fatal. It was also contended therein that the said bus was driven by its driver at a high speed with rashness and negligence and that was the cause for the accident leading to the death of Arichandran. Claiming that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and was getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-in his gunny bag business, they had made the above said claim of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for his death. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant herein and its driver Subramanian, who figured respectively as second and first respondents in the MCOP, based on the averments made in the counter statement filed by the appellant herein, which was adopted by the said driver. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant herein and its driver Subramanian, who figured respectively as second and first respondents in the MCOP, based on the averments made in the counter statement filed by the appellant herein, which was adopted by the said driver. In the counter statement, it was contended that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant and that it was the deceased, who acted with rashness and negligence in crossing the road without noticing the bus and got entangled in the accident. It was contended further that the driver of the bus, on seeing the deceased Arichandran suddenly crossing the road, applied brake and brought the bus to a halt and that thereafter, the deceased came and dashed against the bus, which had become stationary. Based on the above said averments, the appellant and its driver claimed that the MCOP should be dismissed. Besides the above said averments denying their liability, they had also questioned the reasonableness of the amount claimed as compensation and also contended that the claimants would not be entitled to the award of interest higher than 3% per annum, if in any event, the Tribunal would fix the liability on the appellant and its driver. 4. Based on the above said pleadings, the parties went for trial, in which, the first respondent herein/first petitioner in the MCOP, figured as PW.1 and one Boopathy deposed as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the claimants. The driver of the bus belonging to the appellant by name Subramanian, who figured as the first respondent in the MCOP, deposed as the sole witness (RW.1) on the side of the respondents in the MCOP. However, no document was produced on their side. 5. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Tribunal considered the pleadings and evidence in the light of the points urged by the counsel appearing on both sides in their respective arguments and upon such consideration, held that the respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants had proved their averment regarding the nature in which the accident took place. The Tribunal also held that RW.1, the driver of the bus bearing Regn. The Tribunal also held that RW.1, the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 belonging to the appellant herein was at fault and he had caused the accident by driving the bus rashly and negligently and dashing it against the deceased Arichandran, who was walking along the road running in the direction of North to South. Based on the said finding, the Tribunal held the first respondent liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 herein, who were proved to be the legal heirs of the deceased Arichandran. Taking the age of the deceased to be 35 years and the income of the deceased prior to accident at Rs.5,000/-per month, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.7,20,000/-. Adding a further sum of Rs.60,000/-towards conventional damages, the Tribunal fixed the total amount of compensation at Rs.7,80,000/- and directed the appellant herein to pay the said sum to the respondents 1 to 4 herein along with an interest on the said sum at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the MCOP till realisation and also cost. The award also contains directions regarding apportionment. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the award, both in respect of fixation of the liability and in respect of quantum, the appellant Transport Corporation has brought-forth this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal are: " 1. Whether the Tribunal has rendered an erroneous finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 belonging to the appellant herein by its driver? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant requiring reduction?" 8. The arguments advanced by Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 9. The fact that there occurred an accident involving the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 on 05.10.2011 at about 7.00 p.m near Ayyasamy Rice Mill at Mullamparappu on the Poondurai – Erode Main Road has not been disputed and it remains an admitted fact. The materials available on record are also perused. 9. The fact that there occurred an accident involving the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 on 05.10.2011 at about 7.00 p.m near Ayyasamy Rice Mill at Mullamparappu on the Poondurai – Erode Main Road has not been disputed and it remains an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased Arichandran was a pedestrian and he was walking along the said road from North to South at the time of accident and that the said bus came into contact with the deceased Arichandran on the place of accident, which resulted in the injuries and the same later on proved to be fatal. Regarding the accident, besides producing the attested xerox copy of the first information report as Ex.P1, one Boopathy was also examined as PW.2 to substantiate the case of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants that it was the driver of the said bus, who acted with rashness and negligence in driving the bus and caused the accident leading to the death of the above said Arichandran. 10. PW.2-Boopathy has been examined as an eye witness. He has given a vivid description of the accident asserting that while the deceased was walking on the eastern edge of the North-South road, the bus that came in the very same direction knocked him from behind. The testimony of PW.2 is in consonance with the averments found in Ex.P1, copy of the first information report. The said evidence of PW.2 is quite natural and is capable of inspiring the confidence of the court. The meticulous cross-examination made by the counsel for the appellant herein did not bring about any answer impairing the credibility of the said witness; nor was there any contradiction elicited from him regarding the manner in which the accident took place. When the defence plea of the appellant and the evidence of RW.1 are compared with the above said evidence of PW.2 and the contents of Ex.P1, it will make it clear that the appellant, in an attempt to wriggle out of the liability, has chosen to commit blunders in making the pleadings and leading the evidence through RW.1. 11. As per the defence plea made in the counter statement, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 was proceeding from Erode to Palani at the time of accident. 11. As per the defence plea made in the counter statement, the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 was proceeding from Erode to Palani at the time of accident. It is a fact which cannot be disputed that Palani lies on the South and Erode lies on the North and the direction, in which the bus could have travelled would definitely be from North to South. It is not the case of the respondents in the MCOP that at the place of accident, there was any deviation or curve and that segment of the road alone made the travel from Erode to Palani as a travel from South to North. Again, the witnesses examined on the side of the claimants, have clearly deposed that the deceased was proceeding on the east of the North-South road from North to South and that the bus which came in the very same direction dashed against the deceased from behind. In this regard, the very basis on which the appellant tried to show that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant stands demolished. 12. Again, the appellant transport corporation made an attempt to project a case as if the deceased was crossing the road and on seeing the same, the driver of the bus applied brake and stopped the vehicle and that, after the bus came to a halt, the deceased came and hit against the stationary bus, which resulted in the injuries that later on proved to be fatal. If the said contention of the appellant is to be accepted, we have to assume that the pedestrian was crossing the road at a high velocity so as to suffer fatal injuries on coming into contact with the stationary bus. The postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P2 reveals presence of the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. 1. ENT bleeding; 2. lacerated injury on the left occipital region measuring 6 x 4 x 2 cm; 3. lacerated injury over the lower back measuring 4 x 2 x 1 cm; and 4. fracture of the base of the skull. Such injuries could not have been the result of the impact of a pedestrian voluntarily hitting against the stationary bus. ENT bleeding; 2. lacerated injury on the left occipital region measuring 6 x 4 x 2 cm; 3. lacerated injury over the lower back measuring 4 x 2 x 1 cm; and 4. fracture of the base of the skull. Such injuries could not have been the result of the impact of a pedestrian voluntarily hitting against the stationary bus. The fact that there are also lacerations on the back of the body will clearly show that the theory of the appellant could not be countenanced as against the clear pleading and clear evidence on the side of the respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants to the effect that the deceased was proceeding on the left side of the North-South road from North to South and the bus that came in the very same direction hit against him. The defence plea and the evidence adduced through RW.1 cannot be accepted to be correct. Furthermore, even RW.1, while deposing, clearly admitted that the decesaed came into contact with the front left side of the bus and the said impact occurred on the eastern part of the road. This will clearly imply that the theory of the appellant that the deceased was crossing road could not be true. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence cannot be termed either infirm or defective. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Regn. No.TN-33 N-2594 by its driver, does not warrant any interference by this court in this appeal. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,80,000/-as total compensation, which amount was directed to be paid along with an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The split up particulars of the above said amount are as follows: Loss of dependency : Rs.7,20,000/- Loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner : Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection for petitioners 1 to 4 : Rs. 40,000/- Funeral Expenses : Rs. 10,000/- Total : Rs.7,80,000/- The age of the deceased was taken as 35 years by the Tribunal based on the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P2. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection for petitioners 1 to 4 : Rs. 40,000/- Funeral Expenses : Rs. 10,000/- Total : Rs.7,80,000/- The age of the deceased was taken as 35 years by the Tribunal based on the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P2. Now, it has been an established principle that, in fatal cases, multiplier method alone shall be applied and selection of multiplier shall be based on the age of the deceased and not based on the age of the claimants. When a person is said to be aged 'X' years, it will denote his age in completed years. Hence it must be construed that the deceased has completed the age of 35 years at the time of accident. The relevant multiplier shall be 15 as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr reported in 2013 (2) CTC 680. For a person who has completed the age of 35 years, the appropriate multiplier shall be 16. 14. Though the respondents 1 to 4/claimants have claimed that the deceased was doing gunny bag business and was having an income of Rs.15,000/-per month, no piece of paper had been produced by them to show that either he was doing such business or was deriving an income of Rs.15,000/-per month. Except the interested testimony of PW.1, there is no other evidence. As such, the Tribunal has rightly held that the income of the deceased could be assessed notionally holding him to be a coolie. However, the Tribunal chose to fix his earnings at Rs.200/-per day and took the monthly income to be Rs.5,000/- holding that he would have got job at least for 25 days per month. Such a calculation, according to the considered view of this court, shall not be correct. The said amount assessed as monthly income is slightly on the higher side and it shall be appropriate to reduce the same and fix it at Rs.4,500/-per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased should have been fixed at Rs.54,000/-. Since there are four persons depending on the deceased, the deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Apex court in the above said case. If 1/4th of Rs.54,000/- is deducted, we will get Rs.40,500/-. Thus, the annual income of the deceased should have been fixed at Rs.54,000/-. Since there are four persons depending on the deceased, the deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Apex court in the above said case. If 1/4th of Rs.54,000/- is deducted, we will get Rs.40,500/-. If the same is multiplied by the selected multiplier 16, the total amount of compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency shall be Rs.6,48,000/-. 15. Though the appellant shall be successful in projecting the award of compensation under a particular head to be excessive, the decree holders can support the award of the total amount of compensation by pointing out that the compensation awarded under other heads should have been more or that the compensation on some other heads also should have been awarded. As such, though this court comes to the conclusion that the loss of dependency has to be reduced from Rs.7,20,000/- to Rs.6,48,000/-, this court has to consider whether the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is to be confirmed or it requires to be reduced. So far as the loss of consortium to the first respondent is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & others reported in 2013(3) CTC 883 wherein, in a case of death of a person aged about 33 years, the apex court has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for the loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for the minor children. Adopting the same method, this court calculates the loss of compensation for loss of consortium to the first respondent at Rs.1,00,000/- and the loss of love and affection and loss of care and guidance for the minor children, namely respondents 2 to 4 at Rs.1,00,000/-. 16. So far as funeral expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- which needs an upward revision and it can be fixed at Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has omitted to award any amount towards transport expenses. This court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transportation expenses, which would cover the expenses of transporting the deceased from the place of accident to the hospital and thereafter, the dead body from the hospital to the residence of the deceased. The Tribunal has omitted to award any amount towards transport expenses. This court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transportation expenses, which would cover the expenses of transporting the deceased from the place of accident to the hospital and thereafter, the dead body from the hospital to the residence of the deceased. If such calculations are made, the total amount that could have been reasonably awarded will come to Rs.8,78,000/-, which is definitely more than what was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence the contention of the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant is bound to be rejected and this court holds that the same does not warrant any interference or reduction. Accordingly, this court holds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as total compensation cannot be held to be excessive or exorbitant warranting deduction. The award of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum cannot be found fault with. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2012 is confirmed. The appellant shall deposit the balance of the award amount within four weeks from today, if not deposited already.