JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, the Transport Corporation has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The claimants are the legal heirs and the dependents of the deceased Abdul Aziz. The first claimant is the mother and the second claimant is the father of the deceased and the said Abdul Aziz met with an accident and died on 09.05.2001. While the deceased was driving a TVS-50 Moppet, bearing Registration No. TN-67-V-3714, a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-72-N-0853 dashed against the deceased and the deceased sustained serious injuries all over the body. Subsequently, the said Abdul Aziz died in Kadayanallur Government Hospital. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) for the death of Abdul Aziz in the road accident. The Transport Corporation filed their counter affidavit stating that the deceased was negligent in driving the TVS 50 Moppet and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and 13 documents viz. Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked and on the side of the Transport Corporation, RW-1 was examined and two documents viz. Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The third party document was marked as Ex.X.1. 4. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,22,364/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Four only). Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the Transport Corporation has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. Heard Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. R.J. Karthick, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 6. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, it could be seen that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and his monthly income was taken as Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) and after deduction, the Tribunal found that the contribution to the claimants would be Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) and after deduction, the Tribunal found that the contribution to the claimants would be Rs. 4,666/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty six only) and adopting "17" as multiplier, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs. 10,22,364/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Four only). 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the deceased had died as a bachelor, the age of the claimants could have been taken into consideration for awarding compensation and according to the learned Counsel, the proper multiplier would be "13". 8. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 Supreme Court 1270, the only age of the deceased should be taken into consideration for fixing the proper multiplier. 9. In the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court has held follows: “64. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record out conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 10. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court squarely applies to the present case. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the age of the deceased, while applying the multiplier. In these circumstances, the contentions raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) and his contribution to the family at Rs. 4,666/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six only). The income fixed by the Tribunal is very reasonable and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also rightly adopted "17" as multiplier. In these circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.