Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1272 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. III, Madurai. 2. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Kannan, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2008, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from the respondents for the death of the said Kannan in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 20.01.2008, at about 08.30 p.m, when the 1st petitioner's son was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-59J-1368 from south to north in the bye-pass road and while he was negotiating the turning from south to east and entering into DD road, the bus bearing registration No.TN-58P-5488, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from north to south, turned towards east to enter the DD road, without reducing the speed and dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. The 1st petitioner's son sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and working as a goldsmith and earning Rs.10,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioners, who are dependants on the deceased's income have filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said bus involved in the accident., 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the driver of the bus drove the bus carefully and had observed the rules of the road and that at the junction point, the deceased rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bus, without reducing the speed. The averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 5. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 5. On the side of the petitioners, two witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 20.01.2008; Ex.P2-copy of charge sheet dated 18.02.2008; Ex.P3-copy of post mortem report dated 21.01.2008; Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report dated 20.01.2008; Ex.P5-certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Viswakarma Youth Assembly dated 06.12.2008; Ex.P6-xerox copy of driving licence compared with the original; Ex.P7-copy of legal heir certificate compared with the original dated 08.02.2008. On the respondents side, no witness, no documents. 6. The 1st petitioner, i.e., the mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and she has reiterated all the averments made in the petition. The F.I.R filed as Ex.P1 discloses that the accident had taken place on 20.01.2008 at 20.30 hours and the case is registered against the driver of the bus on the same day, based on the complaint given by one Venkatesh, the 3rd petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased. He was also examined as PW.2. The charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus in the Judicial Magistrate Court No. V, Madurai, is filed as Ex.P2. The motor vehicle Inspector's report relating to the bus is filed as Ex.P4, which reveals that the accident had not been caused due to any mechanical defects in the bus. Ex.P6 is the driving licence of the deceased which reveals that the deceased was having a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on observing that no contra evidence had been let in on the part of the respondents to disprove the rashness or negligence of the driver of the bus held that the accident had been caused only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-58P-5488. 7. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, the post mortem report of the deceased Kannan, it is seen that the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of accident. 7. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, the post mortem report of the deceased Kannan, it is seen that the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked on the side of the claimants to establish the income earned by the deceased, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal on observing that the age of the mother as mentioned in the legal heir certificate i.e., Ex.P7, adopted a multiplier of 15' , as was relevant to the age of the mother and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-(Rs.3,000/-x12x2/3x15) to the claimants under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the 1st and 2nd petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased under the head of loss of love and affection and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the 3rd and 4th petitioners as compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. Rs.5,000/-was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-as compensation to the petitioners and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit, within 30 days from the date of its order. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and erred in adopting a multiplier of 15'. It was contended that the award granted under the head of loss of income, loss of love and affection are erroneous. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased was a Goldsmith and he was involved in making of gold ornaments and was earning Rs.10,000/-per month and that he had extended his maximum contribution to the claimants. Out of his income, the 3rd and 4th claimants have been educated as they are minors and dependants on the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal had Suo moto, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. Out of his income, the 3rd and 4th claimants have been educated as they are minors and dependants on the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal had Suo moto, fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. The accident took place in the year of 2008 and in the relevant period, the income of Rs.3,000/-fixed by the Tribunal for the income of the deceased is not appropriate. The award of Rs.5,000/- granted for funeral expenses is also on the lower side. The claimants are 4 in numbers and as such the deduction of 1/3rd of income of deceased for his personal expenses is proper. 10. 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 liability and quantum. This Court is of the further view that as the deceased was aged about 24 years and his avocation was that of a goldsmith and considering that the claimants are 4 in number out of whom two are minors and on observing that the accident had occurred in the year of 2008, the quantum of compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not on the higher side as the deceased was an earning member. Considering this fact, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is unaltered. As per this Court records it is seen that on 04.12.2009, this Court had directed the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount, with accrued interest thereon. Further this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount as per tribunal order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. After such deposit has been made, it is open to all the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. III, Madurai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made by the claimants, if any as per this Court's earlier order. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. III, Madurai, is confirmed, dated 06.01.2009, No costs.