Judgment 1. The appellant/respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.1057 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.2, Tirunelveli. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Mohammed Mohaideen, has filed the present claim in M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2010, claiming a compensation ofRs.20,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Mohaideen in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 21.04.2010, at about 01.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Mohamed Mohaideen, was riding his "TVS XL" motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72B-1027, on the Tirunelveli Anna Fly Over, from west towards east, the 1st respondents TNSTC bus bearing registration No.TN-72N-1153, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the motor cycle and caused the accident. In the impact, the (deceased) Mohammed Mohaideen sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 49 years and was working as a Junior Assistant at Melapalayam Muslim Higher Secondary School and earning Rs.18,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioners, who are the wife, children and father of the deceased have filed the claim against the respondent namely Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited. 3. The respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased as well as the legal heirship of the petitioners. It was submitted that the driver of the 1st respondent's bus drove the bus in a careful and cautious manner and that when the bus was proceeding over the flyover, the rider of the motor cycle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner due to which he lost control of the vehicle and dashed it against the left wall on the fly over, sustained injuries and died. It was submitted that as the motor cycle rider had not possessed a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are necessary parties in the claim and as they have not been added as parties, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Did the accident occur due to the negligence of the respondent's bus driver?; (2) Is the respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners?; If so, what is the quantum?. 5. On the side of the petitioners side, three witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P.8 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet dated 26.04.2010; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report; Ex.P4-post mortem certificate dated 22.04.2010; Ex.P5-copy of observation mahazar dated 21.04.2010; Ex.P6-copy of rough sketch dated 21.04.2010; Ex.P7-legal heir certificate dated 24.05.2010 and Ex.P8-salary certificate dated 17.05.2010. On the respondent's side, one witnesses was examined and no document was marked. 6. PW.1, the wife of the deceased had adduced evidence that when her husband was proceeding on the TVS-50 motorcycle, on the Anna Fly over, the respondent's bus coming from behind and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the motor cycle. 7. PW.2, Kaja Mohaideen, the eyewitnesses of the accident, had also adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus. 8. RW.1, Khodar, had adduced evidence that the motorcyclist, coming from behind the bus had ridden his motor cycle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and had tried to squeeze his vehicle into the path between the wall and side of the bus on the left side of the bus had come ahead in front of the left side of the bus and that on seeing this he had stopped the bus but as the motorcyclist had lost control of his vehicle, he had dashed it against the wall on the side of the fly over and fallen down. 9. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, the F.I.R it is seen that the complaint had been registered within one hour from the time of accident and that it had been given by one Jaman Ubanulla. It has been stated in the F.I.R that the respondent's bus had dashed against the motorcyclist going ahead of the bus and that a case has been subsequently filed against the driver of the bus as per Ex.P2, charge sheet. It has been stated in the F.I.R that the respondent's bus had dashed against the motorcyclist going ahead of the bus and that a case has been subsequently filed against the driver of the bus as per Ex.P2, charge sheet. It is seen on scrutiny of Ex.P3, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanism failure in the vehicles. It is seen on scrutiny of Exs.P5 and P6, that the accident had occurred on the left side of the road. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence and observing that the rear of the motor cycle had been damaged in the accident as per the motor vehicle Inspector's report, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus. 10. On Scrutiny of Ex.P7, the tribunal held, that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the (deceased) Mohammed Mohaideen. PW.1, in her evidence had deposed that her husband was aged 49 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, post mortem certificate, it is seen that the deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident. 11. PW.3, Sheik Mohaideen had adduced evidence that the deceased was employed at Muslim Higher Secondary School and in support of his evidence, he had marked the salary certificate of deceased as Ex.P8. The Tribunal, on observing that the deceased was earning a gross income of Rs.17,959/-per month and on considering that his net income was Rs.12,704/- per month and on considering the future prospects of the deceased, held that his monthly income could be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. On deducting 1/3rd of his personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 13', the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,65,000/-(Rs.15,000x1/3x2x12x13) as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of income. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners towards loss of consortium for the 1st petitioner and loss of love and affection for the other petitioners of Rs.10,000/-was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,25,000/-to the petitioners as compensation and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order. 12. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,25,000/-to the petitioners as compensation and directed the respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, within two months from the date of its order. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tribunal has failed to see that Ex.P8-salary certificate could not be relied on as the author of the same was not examined to prove its contents with after reliable records. It was pointed out that the tribunals fixation of income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month is based on the surmises and conjectures and is contrary to the evidence available. It was argued that the tribunal failed to see that it was not proved that the job of the deceased was permanent and as such it could not be taken that he would work under the same employer and earn the amount he had earned on the date of accident throughout his life. It was dependancy to the claimants was not correct. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 13. Not being satisfied by the award passed by the tribunal, the petitioners have filed a cross appeal in cross appeal No.11 of 2012, in CMA.(MD).No.1057 of 2011. It was pointed out that the income of the deceased should have been fixed by adding 30% of his existing salary towards future prospects and that the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should have been taken as 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, as the number of family members is between 4 to 6. Hence, it was prayed to enhance the compensation under the loss of income to Rs.27,31,484/-. It was also pointed out that the tribunal failed to award compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased income as per Ex.P8, was Rs.12,704/-after statutory deductions, but the tribunal had Suo moto fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and had assessed the compensation in an arbitrary manner. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased income as per Ex.P8, was Rs.12,704/-after statutory deductions, but the tribunal had Suo moto fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and had assessed the compensation in an arbitrary manner. Further, all the claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to receive family penson from the employer. As such, the award under loss of income has to be scaled down from the said compensation award. 15. 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 liability and quantum of compensation. Regarding the rate of interest fixed by the tribunal at 8% per annum, as the claimants are 6 in numbers. Therefore, this Court confirms the said award. As per Court records, this Court had directed the appellant/Insurance company to deposit 50% of the award amount with accrued interest thereon. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 16. After, such deposit has been made, it is open to all major claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon, as fixed by the tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA.No.1057 of 2011 is dismissed. The Cross Objection No.11 of 2012 is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.528 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Tirunelveli, dated 01.02.2011, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.