Judgment : 1. The appellant/Transport Corporation, who is the sole respondent in the claim petition preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award in M.C.O.P.No.640 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(District Court), Karur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the respondent in the above said claim petition is referred to as the appellant and the claimants in the claim petition is referred to as the respondents 1 and 2. 3. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. 4. The respondents 1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Muruganandam filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the death of one Muruganandam in a motor accident occurred on 26.8.2008. 5. The Tribunal has considered both side contentions and also on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, finally held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant/Transport Corporation bus driver. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded for loss of income Rs.7,72,800/-,for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to the first respondent/wife a sum of Rs.25,000/-, for loss of love and affection for the second respondent Rs.10,000/-, for transportation Rs.5000/- and for funeral expenses Rs.5000/-and totally awarded compensation of Rs.8,17,800/-Aggrieved over the above said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/Transport Corporation has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.250/-per day even though the claimants have stated in the claim petition as the deceased was earning Rs.5000/-by working as driver and further the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.4600/-p.m. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the Tribunal has to apply multiplier of 15 instead of 16. The award of Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium to the first respondent is also excessive. Therefore prayed for to reduce the compensation. 8. The award of Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium to the first respondent is also excessive. Therefore prayed for to reduce the compensation. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/-p.m. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the age of the deceased, future prospects also to be taken into consideration. But the learned counsel admitted that the correct multiplier is 16. But the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head of loss of consortium is not excessive as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the above said award. 9. On a perusal of the award would reveal that on the side of the claimants examined P.W.2 one Narayanasamy as an eyewitness to the occurrence and also marked Ex.B1-Copy of the FIR, Ex.B2-Postmortem Certificate, Ex.B5 rough sketch and Ex.B6-Copy of the charge=sheet. A perusal of the above said oral and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant/Transport Corporation bus driver. No contra evidence on the side of the appellant/Transport Corporation. Therefore the trial Court has correctly held that the accident was held only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant bus driver and the appellant has not challenged the above said finding with regard to the negligence aspect. 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel pointed out that the income of the deceased may be taken as Rs.5000/-as stated in the claim petition itself. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that considering the age of the deceased, future prospects is to be taken for fixation of compensation. On a perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants reveal that the claimants have not filed any salary certificate to prove the income except the copy of the driving licence-Ex.B8 and Ex.B9-Conduct Certificate, no other document to prove the avocation of the deceased. In the above said circumstances no amount can be awarded for future prospects. Therefore the annual income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.5000/-as pleaded in the claim petition. In the above said circumstances no amount can be awarded for future prospects. Therefore the annual income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.5000/-as pleaded in the claim petition. Since claimants are two in numbers, one third amount is to be deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased and the correct multiplier is 15. Therefore the loss of income is calculated at Rs.5000x12 x2/3x15=Rs.6 lakhs. With regard to the other heads, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount. Therefore from both sides submissions this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the award passed under other heads by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.6,45,000/- from Rs.8,17,800/-with same interest and costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.