Judgment : 1. The appellant/Transport Corporation has filed this appeal against the judgement and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.374 of 2012, dated 14.03.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Ist Additional District Court(PCR)), Thanjavur. 2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 3. For the sake of convenience, the respondent in the M.C.O.P is referred as appellant and the Petitioners/claimants are referred as respondents hereafter. 4. The respondents have filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of the deceased, namely Senthilkumar in a fatal accident occurred on 05.03.2010. According to the claimants, on 05.03.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased Senthil Kumar riding his TVS Excel Super motor-cycle bearing Registration No.TN 49 P 2350 in the road between Tanjore and Nagapattinam, towards west in slow speeed. At that time, the appellant bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 2939 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. In the above said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on 20.03.2010 due to the injuries sustained by him. It is also stated in the claim petition, that at the time of accident, the deceased was doing agricultural work and also doing milk vending business and earns Rs.12,000/-p.m. According to the claimants, the age of the deceased was 32' and therefore the claimants, who are wife and son claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 5. The appellant/Transport Corporation filed a counter, in which, it is stated that the accident was not occurred as stated in the claim petition and the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Further, it is stated that the driver of the bus has given a complaint to the police immediately after accident, but the concerned Police has wrongly registered a case on the basis of the complaint given by the brothers of the deceased, namely Ravi and Venkatapathy. Further, at the time of accident, the deceased was not having any valid driving licence. The appellant also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. 6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked four documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Further, at the time of accident, the deceased was not having any valid driving licence. The appellant also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. 6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked four documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the side of the appellant/Transport Corporation, examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no documents have been marked. 7. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence and finally held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent bus driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,84,000/-on various heads. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 32' and the monthly income of the deceased was fixed at 4,500/-p.m. In addition to the above income, the tribunal has taken 30% additional income towards future prospects at Rs.1,350/-p.m., and after deducting one third amount towards personal and living expenses and adopted multiplier as 17 and finally, the loss of income to the claimants was calculated and fixed a sum of Rs.7,95,000/-. The tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, Rs.50,000/-towards loss of love and affection for the claimants. The tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/-for transport expenses, for damage to clothe a sum of Rs.1,400/- and in total, the Tribunal has totally awarded a sum of Rs.8,84,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 8. With regard to the negligence aspect, on the side of the claimants, P.W.2 has been examined as eye-witness to the occurrence and also marked Ex.P1-copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P2-Post-mortem certificate and Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. But on the side of the appellant examined only the driver of the bus as R.W.1.A perusal of the evidence of R.W.1 would reveal that so as to escape from the criminal case, he has falsely deposed. Therefore the trial Court has correctly considered the negligence aspect and held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/bus driver and there is no need to interfere with the above said correct finding of the Tribunal. 9. Therefore the trial Court has correctly considered the negligence aspect and held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant/bus driver and there is no need to interfere with the above said correct finding of the Tribunal. 9. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.4,500/- as monthly income and also 30% as additional income towards future prospects. Admittedly, the claimants have not stated in the claim petition that the deceased was employer in any Government or private sectors and earned monthly income. In the claim petition, it is only stated as the deceased was an agricultural worker and also owned agricultural lands and doing milk vending business. At the time of evidence, P.W.1 has deposed as the deceased had taken training in Electrical Wireman Helper and marked the Training Certificate as Ex.P4 and contended that the deceased earned money from the above said electrical work also. Admittedly, on the side of the claimants have not produced any document to prove that he was working as an Electrician and earned any income. Therefore the question of 30% additional income for future prospects will not arise. Anyhow, the claimant has produced Ex.P4-Electrical Wireman Helper Training Certificate for the year 1994-1995. On the side of the claimants have not produced any document to prove that the deceased is having agricultural lands and earns income from the same. In the above said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the monthly income including additional income for future prospects fixed by the Tribunal is to be reduced and fixed at Rs.5,000/-p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/-p.m + 30% as additional income. With regard to the multiplier, the tribunal has wrongly taken as 17' instead of correct multiplier 16', since from the oral and documentary evidence, age of the deceased was 32. With regard to loss of income, after deducting one third amount towards living and personal expenses of the deceased, two third amount should be taken as loss of income to the claimants. Therefore the amount of compensation arrived at for loss of income is Rs.5,000 x 12 x 16 x 2/3 = Rs.6,40,000/-. With regard to loss of income, after deducting one third amount towards living and personal expenses of the deceased, two third amount should be taken as loss of income to the claimants. Therefore the amount of compensation arrived at for loss of income is Rs.5,000 x 12 x 16 x 2/3 = Rs.6,40,000/-. With regard to other heads, the Tribunal has correctly discussed about the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants and fixed reasonable amount for all other heads and therefore there is no need to interfere with the above said amount awarded under other heads. Thus the award of the tribunal is to be modified and re-fixed as under: 1. for loss of income - Rs.6,40,000/- 2. for loss of consortium to the first claimant - Rs.30,000/- 3. for love and affection – to the claimants Rs.50,000/- 4. for funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- 5. for transport expenses Rs.2,000/- 6. for damage to clothe - Rs.1,400/- total - Rs.7,28,400/- 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and reduced from Rs.8,84,000/- to Rs.7,28,400/-with same interest and costs. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the above said modified award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of the claim petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the above said amount on proper application before the concerned Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.