Judgment : The appellant / respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants, who are the wife and mother of the deceased Rajesh Kannan, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tiruvarur, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-as compensation, from the respondent, for the the death of the deceased Rajesh Kannan in a motor vehicle accident. 3. It was submitted that on 24.12.2009, at about 06.35 a.m., when the deceased Rajesh Kannan was coming out of the Hosur New Bus Stand and walking on the eastern side of the mud road, the respondent's Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1627, coming from behind him and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Rajesh Kannan. As a result, the deceased Rajesh Kannan fell down and the front tyre of bus ran over his hip. The deceased Rajesh Kannan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years and was working as a Machinist in VHS Mechatronics Services Pvt., Ltd., Irungattukottai, and earning Rs.9,925/-per month. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondent, who is the owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN23 N1627. 4. The respondent Transport Corporation, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the accident was caused by the negligence of the deceased and that the driver of the bus had not been rash and negligent in his driving of the bus. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were also not admitted. Further, it was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: i. Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's Transport Corporation bus? and ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. 5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely: i. Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's Transport Corporation bus? and ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 6. On the claimants' side, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 namely F.I.R., postmortem report, salary certificate, marriage invitation, photos, driving licence of the deceased, legal heir certificate and employment particulars of the deceased. On the respondent's side no witness was let in and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1 wife of the deceased had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P8. 8. P.W.2 Suresh, eye-witness of the accident, had adduced evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's Transport Corporation bus. 9. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that F.I.R., had been registered against the bus driver based on a complaint given by third party. The Tribunal further observed that the respondent had not stated that the accident was caused due to mechanism failure of the bus. The Tribunal, on observing that the respondent had not examined the driver of the bus to prove that the accident had not been caused due to his negligence and on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P1 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent's bus and hence held that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 10. On scrutiny of Exs.P6 and P7, it is seen that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was working at VHS Mechatronics Services Pvt., Ltd., Irungattukottai. However, the Tribunal observed that the salary of the deceased had not been mentioned on the said exhibit. 10. On scrutiny of Exs.P6 and P7, it is seen that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was working at VHS Mechatronics Services Pvt., Ltd., Irungattukottai. However, the Tribunal observed that the salary of the deceased had not been mentioned on the said exhibit. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs.9,924.29 and a nett salary of Rs.8,758/- and that Rs.492/-had been deducted towards P.F. Hence, the Tribunal, on taking the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-per month and on adopting the relevant multiplier and after deducting 1/3rd of income of the deceased for his personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-as compensation under the head of loss of income, loss of estate, loss of consortium to the first claimant and loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,10,000/-as compensation to the claimants and directed the respondent Transport Corporation to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of two months from the date of it's order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent Transport Corporation has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the appellant since the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that mere registering of F.I.R., is not conclusive proof to show that the driver of the bus had been negligent. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed entire or atleast contributory negligence upon the deceased. It is also contented that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, without examining the author of Ex.P3 salary certificate. It is contended further that the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and without any basis. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. It is also contented that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, without examining the author of Ex.P3 salary certificate. It is contended further that the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and without any basis. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the first claimant is the widow of the deceased and aged about 20 years and the second claimant is the widowed mother of the deceased and aged about 55 years and both were depending upon the income and support of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. Now, both the claimants are in a deserted condition and have no means to earn their livelihood. Further, the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus in a negligent manner and hence a criminal case had been levelled against the driver of the offending bus. The deceased was a machinist and besides he had earned Rs.5,000/-by doing overtime work. On considering the age, income, avocation and dependency, the compensation amount had been assessed in a proper manner. 14. 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 and liability. However, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side as the employer had not been examined in order to prove the employment and monthly income. Therefore, this Court holds that the income of the deceased could only be taken as Rs.7,500/-per month. Accordingly, this Court grants compensation as follows: i. Rs.9,60,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of income (7500 X 2/3 X 12 X 16), ii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of consortium to the first claimant, iii. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection to the second claimant, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses, and v. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport expenses. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation to the claimants, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection to the second claimant, iv. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses, and v. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport expenses. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation to the claimants, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This Court is of the further view that the criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus for his rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the Tribunal had fastened the negligence and liability in an appropriate manner. The rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum fixed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation has submitted that as per the earlier order made by this Court, the entire compensation with accrued interest thereon has been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. 16. This Court apportions the compensation as follows: i. The first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, shall be paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- with proportionate interest thereon, and ii. The second claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, shall be paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with proportionate interest thereon. 17. Further, this Court permits the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, as stated above, with proportionate interest thereon, as per this Court's findings, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tiruvarur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment. Likewise, the appellant Transport Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount, with proportionate interest thereon, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgement. 18. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tiruvarur, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.