JUDGMENT : This appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 2. The appellant is the Transport Corporation. The respondents/claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased person-Maruthai, who died due to the accident caused by a bus owned by the Transport Corporation. On 21.03.2012 at 9.00 a.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN-45-K-0365. When he was proceeding on Kulithalai Manaparai Main Road from South to West direction, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-2354 owned by the appellant Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the said Maruthai sustained injuries on his head and all over the body and he was admitted in Trichy Government Hospital and died on 25.03.2012. The legal heirs of the deceased filed MCOP No. 315 of 2012, before the Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The deceased was aged 60 years at the time of death. 3. The appellant denied their liability to pay any compensation and also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, by judgment and decree dated 16.04.2014. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is questioning the quantum alone. It is the case of the appellant that the award amount is excessive. The respondents have not proved the income of the deceased and the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 7. Though it was claimed that as a Vegetable vendor, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, in the absence of any proof, the Tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. In my view, the same cannot be found fault with. Thereafter, deduction of 1/4th was made towards personal expenses of the deceased. There cannot be any quarrel over the same, as the same is in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another). Hence, there is nothing wrong in providing 1/4th deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased. There cannot be any quarrel over the same, as the same is in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (Sarla Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another). Hence, there is nothing wrong in providing 1/4th deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thereafter, the annual income has been arrived at Rs.45,000/-. The Tribunal adopted 9' as the multiplier and thereafter, fixed Rs.4,05,000/- towards loss of dependency. In my view, the same cannot be termed as excessive. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to the respondents 2 to 4 and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The amount awarded under these heads are also not excessive. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 8. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.