Judgment : 1. Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur made in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2009, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are : On 14.5.2006, the deceased Ameena Beevi was travelling as a pillion rider in TVS 50 Moped bearing registration No. TN 49L 3751 on Thanjavur-Ammapettai road and at that time, a bus bearing Registration No. TN 49 N 1542 hit against the motor cycle and in the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Alleging that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident, the legal heirs of the said Ameena Beevi laid a petition claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. 3. Resisting the claim Petition, the transport Corporation has filed counter disputing the age, income, occupation of the deceased and the manner of the accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the appellant, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The tribunal relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-FIR held that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard Mr. S. Velayutham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Senthil, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the entire liability on the appellant whereas the evidence would show that the driver of the two wheeler is also responsible for the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the award of the Tribunal is excessive, inordinate and improper. 7. Though the appellant has contended that the driver of the motor cycle was responsible for the, but they did not produce any material to substantiate their allegations. The tribunal has rightly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1 and held that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. 8. P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was 36 years old at the time of accident. But Ex.P3-Post mortem Certificate would show that the deceased was 47 years old. The tribunal relying on the evidence of Ex.P3 fixed the age of the deceased at 47 years. 8. P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was 36 years old at the time of accident. But Ex.P3-Post mortem Certificate would show that the deceased was 47 years old. The tribunal relying on the evidence of Ex.P3 fixed the age of the deceased at 47 years. P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was a tailor by profession and she is earning Rs.3000/-p.m. The tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- p.m. after deducting one third amount towards her personal and living expenses held that the deceased had contributed Rs.2000/- to the family. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 1(SC), for the age group between 46-50 fixed multiplier as 13. In the case on hand, the Tribunal rightly applied multiplier 13 and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Altogether the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation which seems to be fair and reasonable and the same is confirmed. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the appellant shall deposit the entire award amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their share as apportioned by the Tribunal with proportionate accrued interest and costs by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The tribunal shall deposit the entire share of award amount of minor claimants 3 and 4 in any one of the nationalised bank, in fixed deposit, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, till they attain majority. The first respondent/guardian is permitted to withdraw interest from the said deposit once in three months directly from the bank. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.