Judgment Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 21.8.2009 in M.C.O.P. No. 196 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai, awarding compensation of Rs.13,44,500/- for the loss of life of K.Elumalai in a road traffic accident occurred on 26.11.2005, this appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. 2. Brief facts are that on 26.11.2005, at about 05.15 pm, the deceased Elumalai was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-01 N 3749 from Saidapet to Velachery. While the bus was proceeding, near Corporation Higher Secondary School, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner on an uneven bumpy road, as a result, the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. Subsequently, he died in the hospital on 28.11.2005. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation, Claimants who are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased, filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, the Managing Director of the appellant Transport Corporation, has filed counter stating that while the bus was proceeding along five Furlong Road near Guindy Race Course, near the Corporation Higher Secondary School, the deceased, who was travelling in the front foot board lost his hold and fell down and sustained injuries and as such, the accident was solely due to the negligent travelling of the deceased in the foot board for which the MTC driver could not be blamed for the recklessness of the deceased. The Transport Corporation denied the occupation, income of the deceased and his monthly contribution to the family and stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining one Mr. Venkatesan, eye-witness as P.W.2. Exs. P.1 to P.12 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P.1 - Copy of FIR Ex.P.2 - Copy of Sketch Ex.P.3 - Discharge Summary Ex.P.4 - Hospital Bill Ex.P.5 - Postmortem Certificate Ex.P.6 - Death Report Ex.P.7 - Legal heirs Certificate Ex.P.8 - Transfer Certificate of the deceased Ex.P.9 - Driving Licence Ex.P.10 - Identity Card Ex.P.11 - Income Certificate Ex.P.12 - Transfer Certificate of PW1 5. On the side of appellant Transport Corporation, driver of the bus which was involved in the accident, viz., Raja Ravanan, was examined as R.W.1 but no document was marked. 6. Considering the evidence of P.W. 2 - Eye witness and Ex.P.1- FIR and Ex. P.2 – Rough Sketch as well as Ex. P.5 Post-Mortem Certificate, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. 7. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the age of the deceased and the future prospects, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and arrived at a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as annual income. The Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, calculated a sum of Rs.80,000/- per annum (Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.40,000/-) as contribution to the family of the deceased. Since the deceased was 36 years old at the time of accident, the Tribunal applying multiplier 16, calculated the loss of income at Rs.12,80,000/- (Rs.80,000 X 16). In addition, the Tribunal has also granted compensation under conventional heads with interest at 9.5% per annum as follows:- Sl.No. Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income to the claimants Rs.12,80,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- 5 Loss of consortium to the first claimant widow Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 13,44,500/- 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 9. In this appeal, negligence and quantum of compensation are challenged before this Court. The points that arise for consideration before this Court are:- (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is correct? (iii) To what relief the claimants are entitled to? 10. Heard the rival contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation as well as the Claimants and perused the documents. 11. Point No.(i):- Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation contended that the accident occurred only due to the reckless attitude and negligence of the deceased and not due to the fault of the driver of the bus. 11. Point No.(i):- Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Transport Corporation contended that the accident occurred only due to the reckless attitude and negligence of the deceased and not due to the fault of the driver of the bus. Though the appellant Transport Corporation has taken a stand that the accident occurred due to negligent act of the deceased, a perusal of the materials available on record, especially, the evidence of the eye-witness P.W.2, Venkatesan, clearly proves that the deceased fell down through the rear entrance of the bus and sustained injuries and as such, the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of driver of the bus. Such testimony has not been discredited. On the contrary, R.W.1, Driver of the bus has stated that the deceased was travelling in the front food board of the bus and he lost his balance while he tried to get down in a non-stop place. The evidence of P.W.2, being eye-witness to the incident, cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus and we see no reason to interfere with the same. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. 12. Point No.(ii):- Besides challenging the award on the ground of negligence, the Appellant Corporation also questioned the correctness of the quantum awarded to the Claimants. The Tribunal had based on the Ex.P.11 Salary Certificate of the deceased, who was the driver in the Corporation of Chennai, fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- after adding a sum for future prospects. The Tribunal had rejected the claim of daily Batta of Rs.200/- as not proved by evidence. After deducting 1/3rd and adopting multiplier of 16 and adding damages on non-pecuniary claims, had awarded a sum of Rs.13,44,500/- which is under challenge. 13. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , chalks out the proper method of compensation by multiplier method. Applying the guidelines set out therein, the three facts that need to be established by the Claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death are (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. Applying the guidelines set out therein, the three facts that need to be established by the Claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death are (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To determine the loss of dependency, addition in respect of future prospects and deduction with regard to personal and living expenses have to be made. Then the multiplier has to be adopted with reference to the age of the deceased. 14. In this case, the deceased was a driver in Corporation of Chennai earning a sum of Rs.6,719/- per month as per Ex.P.11 Salary Certificate. He was 36 years on the date of death and had four dependants, viz., widow, two minor children and mother. The deceased was on a regular job with the Corporation and was aged less than 40. Therefore, as per Sarla Verma’s case (cited supra), 50% of the gross income has to be added towards future prospects in which case, the income of the deceased in the instant case, would be arrived at Rs.10,078/- (Rs.6,719 + Rs.3359/-). Therefore, the Tribunal was right in fixing the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. From this, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses which, in our considered opinion, is wrong. If the dependants are between 4 to 6, then only 1/4th to be deducted. Hence, the monthly loss of dependency is Rs.7,558/- and as such, annual loss would be Rs.7,558 X 12 = Rs.90,702/-. The deceased was 36 years on the date of death. Therefore, the multiplier applicable is 15 and not 16 as done by the Tribunal. Adopting 15 multiplier, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.7,558/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.13,60,530/-. If the other sums under the heads of non-pecuniary damages are added to this, the amount exceeds the Award of the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal and the same is confirmed. 15. It is contended that the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9.5% per annum is on the higher side. The facts that lesser amount was granted towards loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, will compensate the higher interest granted in this case. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly. Point No. (iii):- 16. The facts that lesser amount was granted towards loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, will compensate the higher interest granted in this case. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly. Point No. (iii):- 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. This Court, by conditional order dated 20.6.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011, directed the Appellant to deposit the entire amount. In view of the same and since the Appeal preferred by the Transport Corporation is dismissed, the Claimants 1 and 4/ Respondents 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of Award amount as per the apportionment ordered by the Tribunal and confirmed by this Court. The share of the minor respondents 2 and 3 shall be invested in the Indian Bank, High Court, Madras till they attain majority. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.