S.Baskaran, J.

The Appellants are the claimants before the Tribunal and has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 27.08.2007 while the deceased Ganthamani was proceeding as Pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-38-AF-2551 driven by her husband, who is the 1st petitioner herein, while going in the Avinasi Road, near P.S.G.Technology Institute, the 2nd respondent bus bearing Reg.No.TN-33-N-1623 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was driving, causing her fatal injuries, resulting in her death subsequently in the hospital. The Petitioners who are the husband and children of the deceased contend that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the 2nd respondent's bus driver, who is the 1st respondent herein. The deceased was aged 46 years and was a home maker. Thus, the Petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

3. On the other hand, both the respondents remained exparte before the Tribunal. As such, considering the evidence let in by the Petitioners through P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as documents produced as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15, the Tribunal found negligence of the 1st respondent driver alone resulted in the accident, passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- payable by the respondents to the Petitioner.

4. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the award granted by the tribunal, the Petitioners/claimants have come forward with the present appeal.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence let in by the Petitioners properly. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. The multiplier was not applied properly. The amount awarded under different heads is very nominal. Thus, the Petitioners/claimants sought for enhancement of the award amount by entertaining the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Corporation contend that the accident does not occur due to negligence of the 1st respondent and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal itself considering the status of the deceased as a home maker, passed an award which is just and reasonable. Therefore, the 2nd respondent contends that there is no need to modify the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. This is only quantum appeal. It is admitted by both sides that the deceased Ganthamani was home maker. According to the appellants/claimants, on the occurrence day (27.08.2007), the deceased was proceeding in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-38-AF-2551 along with her husband from their house to the Hospital, wherein, the 2nd Petitioner was admitted. At that point of time, the 2nd respondent bus bearing Reg.No.TN-33-AN-1623 driven by the 1st respondent came at high speed and dashed on the two wheeler driven by the 1st Petitioner causing fatal injuries to the deceased. To prove the same, the Petitioners produced the copy of FIR registered by the Police as Ex.P.1. The contents of the same clearly corroborate the version of P.W.1, who is the husband of the deceased and eyewitness to the occurrence.

9. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has not come forward to contest the matter before the Tribunal and remained exparte. As such, no contra evidence is available on record to contradict the claim of the Petitioners. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal on the basis of P.W.1 ora