JUDGMENT (Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Valliyoor dated 10.03.2020.) L.Victoria Gowri, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in M.C.O.P No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valliyoor dated 10.03.2020 seeking to set aside the impugned award passed in the said M.C.O.P on the file of the said Tribunal. 2. The factual matrix of the present case is briefly stated as under: (i) The appellant in this appeal is the first respondent - Transport Corporation, wherein the deceased, namely, one Mr.Thomas served as conductor. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. The fourth respondent is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the fifth respondent is the Insurance Company. (ii) On 06.04.2016 at about 03.00 a.m., when the deceased Mr.Thomas was in duty in a Transport Bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 AN 0128 belonging to the Appellant – Corporation, the driver of the aforesaid bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner along Virudhunagar – Nagercoil National Highway from North to South. Due to the uncontrollable speed and negligence of the bus driver near Virudhunagar – Maathunaickanpatti junction, the said bus dashed the backside of the lorry owned by the fourth respondent / second respondent bearing Registration No.TN 60 K 0045 which was parked in the left extreme facing South along with ignited parking lamp. As a result of this accident, Mr.Thomas and several passengers, who travelled in the said bus sustained grievous injuries. However, the said Mr.Thomas died on the spot. The accident was witnessed by one Mr.Mahesh. (iii) During his death Mr.Thomas having served as a conductor of the Appellant – Transport Corporation, the deceased Mr.Thomas was receiving an amount of Rs.38,438/- as salary per month. The untimely death of Mr.Thomas affected the life of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 gravely. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Mr.Thomas. The second and third respondents are the children of the deceased Mr.Thomas. The untimely death of Mr.Thomas affected the life of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 gravely. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Mr.Thomas. The second and third respondents are the children of the deceased Mr.Thomas. All the three together filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valliyoor, praying for a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest from the date of accident till the date of realisation. (iv)Three witnesses were examined on the sides of the petitioners and Exhibits P1 to P11 documents were marked on the side of the respondents. The eye witness Mr.Mahesh, was examined before the Tribunal and he deposed in his evidence before the Tribunal that at the time of accident parking lamps were on in the lorry against which the said bus dashed. Moreover, only on the complaint lodged by one Mr.Sivalingam, the driver of the lorry involved, the First Information Report marked as Exhibit P1 was registered by the jurisdictional police. Moreover the charge sheet marked as Exhibit P7 would reveal that after proper investigation, the investigating officer has concluded the investigation by fixing negligence on the driver of the appellant''s bus in the charge sheet. No evidence was taken on the side of the Appellant''s Corporation either to contradict or to cross-examine the witness. Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked substantiating the claim of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 / claimants and the circumstances which led to the fatal accident. As such, after considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. (v) The deceased was 54 years old and was a conductor at the time of his death in the Appellant – Transport Corporation. The claimants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs.38,438/- at the time of his death and the same was proved by marking the salary receipt of the deceased as Exhibit P11. On the basis of which, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Rs.38,438/- and added up a nominal hypothetical increase of 15% for calculating the future income of the deceased. 15% of the monthly salary of the deceased turned up to Rs.5,765/-. On the basis of which, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Rs.38,438/- and added up a nominal hypothetical increase of 15% for calculating the future income of the deceased. 15% of the monthly salary of the deceased turned up to Rs.5,765/-. Thus the monthly income of the deceased was calculated as Rs.38,438 + 5,765 (15%) totalling up to Rs.44,203/- from which, 10% was deducted for Income Tax, resulting in a monthly income of Rs.39,783/-. Of the calculated monthly income of Rs.39,783/- adopting the guidelines of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting the same, the monthly income was fixed at Rs.26,522/-. Thus the yearly loss of dependency was calculated as Rs.26,522 X 12 (months) = Rs.3,18,264/-. As the age of the deceased was 54, adopting Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the multiplier of 11 was complied in this case by the Tribunal calculating the total loss of dependency, as Rs. 3,18,264 (multiplicand) X 11 (multiplier) = Rs.35,00,904/-. (vi)The compensation was awarded to the first respondent''s wife and her minor children (second and third respondents). The Appellant – Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation and the negligence was fixed with the driver of the Appellant Corporation. In addition to the total loss of dependency, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of parental consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, together totalling to a tune of Rs.35,00,904/-. 3. The Tribunal held that the facts relating to the accident are fully admitted by the Appellant / first respondent and the Appellant / first respondent failed to disprove the evidence brought out by the claimants before the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the amount was payable and the total amount along with interest was held to be payable by the Appellant - Transport Corporation. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the negligence on the driver of the appellant''s bus, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant Corporation. 4. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties anxiously and perused the materials available on record. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the negligence on the driver of the appellant''s bus, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant Corporation. 4. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties anxiously and perused the materials available on record. 5. Considering the facts, circumstances, documents and evidences of both the parties before the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the award of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. The Tribunal has meticulously followed the parameters upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , in adopting the multiplier as 11 to calculate the total loss of dependency, on the basis of the age of the deceased. 6. Following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the Tribunal has rightly calculated the future income at 15% and deducting the 1/3rd of the monthly income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has further followed the parameters carved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram and Others in Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3192 of 2018, dated 18.09.2018 in calculating the consortium, parental consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. 7. In the result we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has passed the impugned award applying all the parameters put forth by the Honourable Supreme Court in various cases while calculating the total amount of compensation and other consortium and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the same is thereby confirmed. The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 7.5% is also justified and the same is also confirmed. 8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal is dismissed, the Appellant – Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal is dismissed, the Appellant – Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with interest and costs. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands close.