JUDGMENT R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. The Transport Corporation which suffered an award for payment of a sum of Rs. 16,61,000/- for the death of one Juliet Jebapushpam in a motor accident that occurred on 06.05.2016 is the appellant. 2. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the two-wheeler that belonged to her husband from Seerkazhi to Mayiladuthurai. While they were nearing Best Higher Secondary School, a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation came from behind and hit against the two-wheeler. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and left rear wheel of the bus ran over her resulting in her instantaneous death. Contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-68-N-0093, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The claimants had further contended that the deceased was a tailor by profession and was earning about Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per day. It is the further contention of the claimants that she had employed two persons in her tailoring business. 3. The claim was resisted by the Transport Corporation contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants. According to the Corporation, while the bus over took the motor-cycle, the driver of the two-wheeler lost balance and the deceased, being a pillion rider, fell down resulting in the rear left wheel of the bus running over her. A reference was also made by the Corporation to the damages caused to the bus as well as the two-wheeler to strengthen its claim that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler. The Corporation also denied the age and income of the deceased as set out in the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal which heard the claim petition concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the 2nd petitioner as PW1, the FIR and the charge sheet which were filed against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal also took into account the evidence of PW2, an eye witness examined by the claimants. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the 2nd petitioner as PW1, the FIR and the charge sheet which were filed against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal also took into account the evidence of PW2, an eye witness examined by the claimants. In fact three Original petitions were filed in MCOP.Nos.92, 94 and 96 of 2014 seeking compensation for the death of Juliet Jebapushpam and for the injuries caused to minor Ebinesar Esthar and Arokiyadas. The issue regarding negligence was common to all the three Original Petitions. The Transport Corporation has accepted the award in MCOP.No.94 and 96 of 2016. Therefore, the Corporation cannot now seek to re-agitate the claim regarding negligence. 5. On the quantum, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/-, and added 50% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The Tribunal, thus arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 13,26,000/-, having adopted a multiplier of 17' based on the age of the deceased viz., 30 years. 6. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the husband and Rs. 1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to the two minor children. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards transportation. Thus, the total award worked out to Rs. 16,61,000/-. Terming the award as excessive the Corporation has come forward with this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation and Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants. 8. Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation would contend that the Tribunal fell in error in adopting 50% as future prospects. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in, (2018) 1 LW 331 , he would contend that the Tribunal should have adopted only 40% towards future prospects. He would further submit that the awards under the conventional heads viz., loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are on the higher side. 9. Contending contra, Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal had in fact adopted a very low figure of Rs. He would further submit that the awards under the conventional heads viz., loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are on the higher side. 9. Contending contra, Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal had in fact adopted a very low figure of Rs. 6,500/- per month as income for an accident which occurred in the year 2016. According to the learned counsel, even an unskilled labourer would have earned about Rs. 300/- per day i.e., about Rs. 9,000/- per month. Though the Tribunal has adopted the future prospects at 50% and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and another Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the award taken as a whole is just and reasonable. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. Though we see some force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the percentage of future prospects adopted by the Tribunal and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads viz., loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, we must point out that the income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,500/- per month is too low. As rightly pointed out by Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ claimants, even an unskilled labourer would have earned not less than Rs. 9,000/- per month in the year 2016. If Rs. 9,000/- is adopted as monthly income and 40% is added towards future prospects, the compensation under the loss of dependency alone works out to Rs. 17,13,600/- (Rs.9,000 + 40% x 2/3 x 12 x 17), but, the Tribunal has on the whole awarded only a sum of Rs. 16,61,000/-. Even assuming that the awards under the conventional heads are on the higher side, the total compensation arrived at is just and reasonable. 11. We therefore, see no merits in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award of the Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till date of deposit within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and on such deposit the 1st claimant husband is permitted to withdraw his share of compensation as apportioned by the Tribunal. The shares of the minors viz., claimants 2 and 3 are directed to be deposited in an interest bearing cumulative fixed deposit with a nationalized bank till they attain majority. We are not permitting the father/ guardian of the minors to withdraw the interest since, he is earning and he can take care of the children from and out of his earnings. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.