JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.” 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 30.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. 3. The appellant is the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. The respondents 1 to 3 filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Kumari, who died in the accident that took place on 30.07.2015. 4. According to respondents 1 to 3, on 30.07.2015 at about 02.30 P.M., while the deceased Kumari was traveling in the car bearing Registration No. PY-01X-3233 owned by 4th respondent and insured with 5th respondent on the Villupuram-Thiruvannamalai 234 Natioanl Highways Road near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-32N-3661 belonging to appellant, who was driving the bus from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car in which the said Kumari was traveling and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Kumari sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3, filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of said Kumari against the appellant-Transport Corporation and the respondents 4 & 5, being the owner and insurer of the car respectively. 5. The appellant-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 3. According to the appellant, while the driver of the bus was driving the bus at moderate speed from Villupuram to Tirupathi near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver saw a passerby suddenly crossing the road. On seeing this, the driver of the bus tried to save the person and dashed on the car bearing Registration No. PY-01X-3233 which was coming in the opposite direction and thus the accident occurred. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The appellant-Transport Corporation denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The 4th respondent-owner of the car remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 7. The 5th respondent-Insurance Company filed separate counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3. The 5th respondent is an unnecessary party in the claim petition. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. F.I.R. was registered only against the driver of the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car owned by 4th respondent. The respondents 1 to 3 stated in the claim petition that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. At the time of accident, the insurance policy was taken for only three persons in the car. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to claim any compensation from this respondent. The 5th respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and PW-2, one Kathirvel, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-3 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. The appellant-Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus, viz. Kasinathan as RW-1 and no document was marked. The 5th respondent examined one Ashokkumar as RW-2 and marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1. 9. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and directed the appellant-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 15,60,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 and dismissed the claim petition as against the respondents 4 and 5. 10. To set aside the award dated 30.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 11. 15,60,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 and dismissed the claim petition as against the respondents 4 and 5. 10. To set aside the award dated 30.08.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have held that mere registering of F.I.R. is more enough for fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal erroneously fixed negligence on the driver of the bus merely relying on the F.I.R. The Tribunal has to independently consider the evidence let in before it. The respondents 1 to 3 failed to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased by producing valid documents. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the avocation and income, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is excessive. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials on record. 13. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that at the time of accident, while the deceased Kumari was traveling in the car bearing Registration No. PY-01X-3233 owned by 4th respondent and insured with 5th respondent on the Villupuram-Thiruvannamalai 234 National Highways Road near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-32N-3661 belonging to appellant, who was driving the bus from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car in which the said Kumari was traveling and caused the accident. To prove the said contention, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and 2 and examined one Kathirvel, eyewitness to the accident as PW-3 and marked F.I.R. which was registered against the driver of the bus belonging to appellant as Ex.P1 and other documents. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation that while the driver of the bus was driving the same at moderate speed from Villupuram to Tirupathi near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver saw a passerby suddenly crossing the road. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-Transport Corporation that while the driver of the bus was driving the same at moderate speed from Villupuram to Tirupathi near Kariankulam at Shozhaganur Village, the driver saw a passerby suddenly crossing the road. On seeing this, the driver of the bus tried to save the person and dashed on the car bearing Registration No. PY-01X-3233 which was coming in the opposite direction and caused the accident. To prove the said contention, the appellant examined the driver of the bus as RW-1. Further, the 5th respondent-Insurance Company also contended that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation and F.I.R. also registered only against the driver of the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car owned by 4th respondent. RW-1 is an interested witness and the appellant has not examined any other independent witness to corroborate the evidence of RW-1. Further, the appellant or the driver of the bus have not filed any objection to the F.I.R. which was registered against the driver of the bus and also has not filed any complaint against the driver of the car owned by 4th respondent. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, RW-1, Ex.P1/F.I.R. which was registered against the driver of the bus and failure on the part of the appellant for not filing any objection to the F.I.R. not filing any complaint against the driver of the car owned by 4th respondent and not examining any other independent witness except RW-1, held that accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant-Transport Corporation. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the claim of the respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years, doing Weaving work and was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. To prove the same, the respondents 1 to 3 filed Ex.P19/Identity Card and Membership Card of the Handloom Weaver Association. 20,000/- per month. To prove the same, the respondents 1 to 3 filed Ex.P19/Identity Card and Membership Card of the Handloom Weaver Association. Except filing Ex.P19, the respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any salary slip, attendance register or wage register to prove the avocation and income. In the absence of any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Neeta vs. Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC), Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. S. Vasanthi, 2017 (2) TN MAC 347 (DB) and Andal vs. Avinav Kannan, 2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB) and the judgment of this Court reported in Mythili vs. A. Lakshmi, 2019 (1) TN MAC 563 fixed a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, which is not excessive. As per Ex.P19/Identity Card and Membership Card of the Handloom Weaver Association, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 SC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) rightly applied multiplier 14 and granted 25% enhancement towards future prospects. There are three dependants of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal considering entire materials on record, has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,60,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3, which is not excessive warranting interference by this Court. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 15,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 135 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as against the respondents 4 and 5. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.