JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award, dated 26.04.2006, made in M.C.O.P No.46 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2001. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as compensation for the death of one Narayana Pillai @ Raghu in the accident that took place on 08.05.1999. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 3, while the deceased was walking near the Hyundai Company from East to West, an Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. TM-01-C-2734 driven by the fourth respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. Though he was taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 09.05.1999. The fifth respondent is the owner of the Auto. The appellant is the insurer. The first respondent is the mother, the second respondent is the sister and the third respondent is the brother of the deceased. 4. The fourth and fifth respondents herein remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company in the counter has stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased as he crossed the road suddenly and therefore, the driver could not control the auto and the accident did not occur due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto. Further, the driver of the auto did not possess valid driving licence. 5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and the third respondent examined himself as P.W.2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The appellant did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. 6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence let in by the respondents 1 to 3, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto. Considering the age of the deceased and the evidence of the first and third respondents, by applying multiplier method, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only) as compensation. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 8. Considering the age of the deceased and the evidence of the first and third respondents, by applying multiplier method, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only) as compensation. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record. 9. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the Tribunal erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/-; the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier ''11'' when the age of the mother of the deceased is 67 years; the Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% of contributory negligence on the deceased; the Tribunal erred in deciding the sister of the deceased, aged 42, is also a legal heir of the deceased; and in any event, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 10. These contentions are not acceptable. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed as to how the accident has occurred and the driver of the Auto is responsible for the accident. The appellant has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the contention of the respondents 1 and 3. Further, in the criminal case registered against the first respondent ? driver of the Auto, he was found guilty and punished with imposition of fine. Thereafter, he paid the fine amount. 11. The Tribunal, considering the entire materials on record, fixed the notional income of the first respondent as Rs. 2500/- per month, by applying multiplier ''11'', awarded Rs. 2,20,000/-towards loss of income. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and there is no error as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled that the age of the deceased is to be taken to arrive at multiplier and not the age of parents of the deceased and the Tribunal has applied the correct multiplier. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 8000/- for Transportation and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. Totally, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads, which are just and proper. 12. In view of the above facts, there is no reason warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 10,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 8000/- for Transportation and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. Totally, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads, which are just and proper. 12. In view of the above facts, there is no reason warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.