JUDGMENT 1. An accident has occurred on 08.01.2011 about 11 am., involving two vehicles, viz., a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN46 D 7669 and a transport corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN32 N 2587. In the collision, one Ramachandran died. Legal representatives, wife, minor aged about 4 years and parents have filed MCOP No.57 of 2011 on the file of MACT (Sub Judge), Kallakurici, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was stated to be a farmer and labourer. 2. The State Transport Corporation in its counter affidavit, has disputed negligence attributed against its driver. According to the Transport Corporation, the vehicle was driven from Vellimalai to Kallakurichi, by observing traffic rules, at a normal speed and when the bus was proceeding between Kodunthurai to Kudiyanathan, there was a 'U'-turn and it was the deceased, who, by his negligent riding dashed against the bus. For the above reasons, the Transport Corporation denied negligence and their consequential liability. Without prejudice to the above, the transport corporation disputed the age, income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 3. Before the claims tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2, is the eye witness. Ex.P1 dated 08.01.2011, FIR and Ex.P2, dated 09.01.2011 post mortem certificate have been filed on the side of the claimants. RW1, is the driver of the bus, involved in the accident. No document has been filed on behalf of the transport corporation. 4. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal found that RW1, driver of the state transport corporation bus was negligent in causing the accident. By fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-and after deducting 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and by applying 17' multiplier, applicable to the age of the deceased, the claims tribunal has computed the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.6,12,000/-. In addition to the above, the claims tribunal, has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/-for consortium and Rs.20,000/- for love and affection. Altogether, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs.6,57,000/-with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim. 5. Assailing the correctness of the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the transport corporation bus, the State Transport Corporation, Villupuram, has filed the appeal. Altogether, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs.6,57,000/-with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim. 5. Assailing the correctness of the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the transport corporation bus, the State Transport Corporation, Villupuram, has filed the appeal. Seeking reversal of the finding of negligence, Mr.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that the claims tribunal has failed to consider that the motorcyclist did not have a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of accident. He further submitted that non possession of driving license ought to have been taken into consideration to hold negligence against the motorcyclist. Quantum of compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased, is assailed on the ground that the claims tribunal has fixed a higher income of Rs.4,500/-per month, for computing the loss of contribution to the family. Except the above, no other submission has been advanced. 6. Heard the appellant Transport corporation and perused the materials available on record. 7. Though, PW1, wife of the deceased has not witnessed the accident, she has reiterated the manner of accident. Admittedly, Ex.P1 dated 08.01.2011 FIR has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn. No.TN32 N 2587 in Cr.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Kariyalur Police Station. PW2, Ilayaraja, is stated to be the eye witness. When he was cross examined, as to the manner of accident, the claims tribunal has clearly recorded that he has denied the suggestion that the deceased motorcyclist, rode the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. The claims tribunal has also recorded that nothing has been elicited from PW2, to suggest that the deceased was negligent for causing the accident. Testimony of RW1, is not supported with any oral or documentary evidence. On the contra, the oral testimony of PW1, is duly supported by PW2, an eye witness, the pillion rider, who travelled in the motorcycle, and also corroborated by Ex.P1, FIR. 8. It is well settled in motor accident claims cases that finding regarding negligence is arrived at by the Claims Tribunal on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of evidence is not required like that of a criminal case. It is also well settled that the adjudication of claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is summary in nature. It is well settled in motor accident claims cases that finding regarding negligence is arrived at by the Claims Tribunal on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of evidence is not required like that of a criminal case. It is also well settled that the adjudication of claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is summary in nature. Testing the finding of negligence recorded by the Claims Tribunal, on the above said principles, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity or it is a case of no evidence. As stated supra, there is no rebuttal evidence. Hence, the finding regarding negligence is confirmed. 9. The contention that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of accident and therefore an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the deceased, is not relevant. Even taking it for granted that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, that alone is not sufficient to conclude, the manner in which the accident occurred and to hold that the deceased was negligent in causing the accident. That apart, to support the contention that the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of accident, the transport corporation has not adduced any evidence. Mere averments do not stand the test of proof. The said contention cannot be countenanced, particularly, when there is clinching evidence, supporting the finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the transport corporation bus. 10. Merely because the injured or the deceased, as the case may be, did not possess a licence at the time of accident, it cannot be presumed that he was negligent in causing the accident. Manner of accident is not decided on the sole basis of non-possession of licence. In Motor Accident Claim cases, the Courts / tribunals, while adjudicating the aspect of negligence, are mainly concerned with the manner, as to how the accident could have occurred to fix negligence on the tort-feasor. May be in a given case, if the injured or the deceased, as the case may be, was a minor at the time of accident, negligence could be attributed on the ground that he did not have the capacity to control the kind of vehicle, involved in the accident. May be in a given case, if the injured or the deceased, as the case may be, was a minor at the time of accident, negligence could be attributed on the ground that he did not have the capacity to control the kind of vehicle, involved in the accident. If the injured or deceased was a major, concrete and unimpeachable evidence has to be adduced, to prove that the there was negligence on the part of the victim. 11. On the quantum of compensation, though the respondents /claimants have contended that the deceased earned Rs.15,000/- per month, there was no proof. Having regard to the number of members in the family and by observing that as a farmer and labourer, the deceased would have earned Rs.4,500/-per month for the purpose of maintaining his family, the claims tribunal has fixed the same and after deducting 1/3, towards the personal and living expenses, applied 17' multiplier for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. The deceased was aged 25 years and therefore, application of 17' multiplier, cannot be said to be erroneous. That apart, compensation awarded under other heads, is reasonable. There is no award for loss of estate and damages to clothes. The widow was just 22 years. Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head loss of consortium, cannot be said to be on the higher side. The claims tribunal has failed to consider that apart from the parents, the only son aged about 4 years, has lost his father. The compensation awarded under the head loss of love and affection is inadequate. 12. For the reasons stated supra, finding fixing negligence on the driver of the transport corporation bus and the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants, are sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, if not deposited earlier, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.57 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Kallakurichi, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share as apportioned by the tribunal with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications. The share of the minor/2nd respondent shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks in fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme initially for a period of three years. The interest accruing on the share of the minor/2nd respondent shall be paid to the 1st respondent/mother of the minor once in three months, till he attains majority.