JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 24.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Madurai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, dated 24.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Special District Court, Madurai. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the fifth respondent is the first respondent in the original claim petition. 2. Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, is as follows:- On 13.12.2012, at about 05.45 pm., when the deceased – Mayandithevar, was walking near Suliochanpatti Library, a School Bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-U-4348 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and he died on the spot. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, is as follows:- The school bus was driven by its driver in a slow and cautious manner. While the bus was turning, the deceased, who was sitting, tried to get up and he lost his balance and fell down and sustained injuries. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was valid. The age, profession, income of the deceased are to be proved. 4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2013, is as follows:- The manner of accident is denied. The driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The deceased was responsible for the accident. The age, profession, income of the deceased are all denied. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claim is excessive. 5. On the side of the petitioners, 1 witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 1 witness was examined and 3 documents were marked. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 6. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claim is excessive. 5. On the side of the petitioners, 1 witness was examined and 5 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 1 witness was examined and 3 documents were marked. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 6. Against the award, the appellant approached this Court by way of this appeal, on the following grounds: The Tribunal failed to consider that the age of the deceased was more than 72 years and he was not able to hear. It was the deceased, who crossed the road without observing the upcoming vehicle. The Tribunal failed to consider that the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, which is excessive. The Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- towards parental consortium, Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that when the school bus was taken in the reverse mode, due to deafness, the deceased failed to note the bus and met with an accident. There is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and atleast 50% contributory negligence is to be fixed. 8. On the side of the respondents 1 to 4 /claimants, it is stated that P.W.1 himself was examined as an eyewitness before the criminal Court. F.I.R and charge sheet were against the driver of the bus and that acquittal of the driver in the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal. 9. To substantiate this claim, a judgment of this Court in CMA.(MD)No. 773 of 2013 (Nagammal V. Muthiraiyan), dated 24.09.2018, is cited on the side of the respondent, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “9. It is well settled law that proceedings before the Claims Tribunalare summary in nature and it is suffice to consider, whether there is any preponderance of probability, as to the manner of accident, as detailed in the claim petition. Strict proof of evidence is not required. In this case, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased is an accidental one. The witnesses PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated in their evidence that it is the first respondent, who drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In this case, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased is an accidental one. The witnesses PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated in their evidence that it is the first respondent, who drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. However, the first respondent has been examined as RW1. Though RW1 has stated in his evidence that he has been wrongfully dragged in this case by the second respondent and he did not ride the vehicle in question at the time of the accident and cause the accident, he has not given any complaint against the second respondent and he has not substantiated his case by any piece of evidence. Further, it would be general denial of the rider in all the cases that he did not cause the accident for avoiding payment of any compensation. Therefore, the evidence of RW1 cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the claimant has proved by preponderance of probabilities that it is the first respondent who had ridden the vehicle and caused the accident. ..... The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirements of culpable rashness under Section 304A, I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability.“ 10. Another judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.2701 of 2001, dated 03.10.2013 (Baskar V. The Superintendent of Police), is cited on the side of the respondent, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “7.3. Needless to point out that not even the judgment of the Criminal Court is binding upon the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal is expected to peruse the oral and documentary evidence that is adduced before it and come to an independent conclusion.“ 11. On the side of the respondents 1 to 4 /claimants, it is stated that contributory negligence has to be proved through proper evidence. The appellant has failed to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. A judgment of this Court reported in 2018-1-TNMAC-79 (P.Baskar V. T.Raja) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “The contributory negligence cannot be assumed, but, it has to be proved. The finding of the contributory negligence is set aside.“ 12. The appellant has failed to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. A judgment of this Court reported in 2018-1-TNMAC-79 (P.Baskar V. T.Raja) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:- “The contributory negligence cannot be assumed, but, it has to be proved. The finding of the contributory negligence is set aside.“ 12. The law is well settled that the decision of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal. The appellant has not chosen to examine any witness or mark any document to prove that the deceased was suffering from loss fo hearing power. P.W.1 was mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet. Admittedly, the bus was taken in the reverse mode. It is the duty of the conductor of a heavy vehicle, especially, in a school bus, to guide the driver, who is taking the vehicle in the reverse mode. It is seen that no such conductor was available in the bus. There is no evidence to prove that the deceased was deaf. There is no evidence to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not sustainable. 13. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 76 years and there is no possibility of the claimants to be his dependents and that it was the deceased, who is the dependent of the claimants and that the deceased was having defect in his hearing capacity and that there is no chance of any income for the deceased and that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. 14. On the side of the respondents 1to 4 / claimants, it is stated that the deceased was doing Agricultural work and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. For the own expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th and after deducting 1/4th towards his own expenses, the deceased might have contributed Rs.4,550/- to his family members, which is reasonable. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 5' has calculated the loss of income as Rs.2,70,000/-, which is not reasonable. 15. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 5' has calculated the loss of income as Rs.2,70,000/-, which is not reasonable. 15. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009-2-TNMAC-1-SC (Smt.Sarla Verma and others V.Delhi Transport Corporation), for a death of a person aged about 70 multiplier 5' to be adopted. In paragraph No.21 of the above judgment, it is stated as follows:- “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 16. Hence, after deducting 2 units multiplier, 3' is applicable. The loss of income is calculated as Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 12 X 3 = Rs.1,62,000/-) 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.300/- towards damages to articles. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for each of the claimants, considering the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018-1- TNMAC-452(SC) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others. The accident took place in the year 2012. Hence, the above cited judgment is not applicable to the present case. Considering the dictum of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional charges. 18. The compensation is calculated as follows:- For loss of income Rs.1,62,000/- Conventional charges Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation Rs.2,32,000/- 19. This appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.2,32,000/-. (i) The claimants are entitled to Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation. 70,000/- towards conventional charges. 18. The compensation is calculated as follows:- For loss of income Rs.1,62,000/- Conventional charges Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation Rs.2,32,000/- 19. This appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.2,32,000/-. (i) The claimants are entitled to Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation. (ii) The appellant – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Thirty Two Thousand only) (if not already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and with costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made by the Insurance Company, the respondents/ major claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal with interest and costs immediately, on the filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already withdrawn by them. The Claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. Excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance company. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.