1. Though This Matter Is Posted In Admission List, With The Consent of Learned Counsel For Both The Parties, The Same Is Taken Up For Final Disposal.

2. This Appeal By The Appellant-Insurer Is Directed Against The Impugned Common judgment and Award Dated 12/01/2010 Passed In Mvc No. 1548/2006 On The File of The I Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As Tribunal For Short).

3. By Its Common judgment and Award, The Tribunal Has Awarded A Sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- With Interest At 6% P.A., From The Date of Petition Till Realization As Against The Claim Made By The Claimants For A Sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, On Account of The Death of Mr. Vishwanath, In The Road Traffic Accident.

4. The Occurrence of The Accident On 9.1.2006 At About 5.15 Hours Due To The Rash and Negligent Driving By The Driver of Bus Bearing Reg. No. Ka. 20a. 4907 Near Nethravathi Birdge At Panemangalore, Bantwal Taluk and The Injuries Sustained By The Claimant and Thereafter, His Death Are Not In Dispute. On Account of The Injuries Sustained By The Claimant, He Has Filed A Claim Petition Before The Tribunal Claiming Compensation Against The Driver, Owner and Insurer of The Offending Vehicle. During The Pendency of The Said Petition, Claimant Died and His Legal Representatives Were Brought On Record. It Is The Case of The Claimants That Deceased Was Aged About 25 Years, Was Hale and Healthy Prior To The Accident and Due To His Untimely Death They Suffered Both Socially and Financially. The Said Claim Petition Had Come Up For Consideration Before The Tribunal. The Tribunal After Hearing Both Sides and After Assessing The Oral and Documentary Evidence, Has Assessed The Income of The Deceased At Rs. 3,000/- Per Month, By Deducting L/3rd Towards His Personal Expenses and By Adopting Multiplier of 18 Has Awarded A Sum Rs. 4,32,000/- Towards Loss of Dependency and Rs. 10,000/- Towards Transportation and Funeral Expenses and In All, Rs. 4,42,000/- With Interest At 6% P.A., From The Date of Petition Till Realisation and Accordingly, Allowed The Claim Petition In Part. Being Aggrieved By The Said judgment and Award, The Insurer Has Presented This Appeal, For Reduction of Compensation On The Ground That Compensation Awarded Is On Higher Side.

5. I Have Heard The Learned Counsel Appearing For Insurer-Sri. C.R. Ravishankar and Learned Counsel Appearing For Claimants Sri. G. Ravishankar Shastry.

6. Learned Counsel Appearing For The Insurer Submitted That, The Tribunal Has Erred In Deducting 1 /3rd Towards Personal Expenses of The Deceased and In Adopting Multiplier of 18 Considering His Age While Calculating The Compensation. Further, He Submitted That, The Tribunal Ought To Have Deducted 50% Towards The Personal Expenses of The Deceased and Ought To Have Considered The Age of The Younger Parent of The Deceased, Mother, While Adopting Multiplier For Calculating Loss of Dependency, As He Was A Bachelor. Therefore, He Submitted That The Impugned judgment and Decree Passed By The Tribunal Is Liable To Be Modified.

7. After Perusal of The Impugned judgment and Award Passed By The Tribunal, We Do Not Find Any Error of Law, Much Less Material Irregularity Committed By The Tribunal In Awarding The Said Compensation On Account of The Death of The Deceased During The Pendency of The Claim Petition Due To The Injuries Sustained By Him In The Road Traffic Accident. The Compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/- Awarded Towards Loss of Dependency and Rs. 10,000/- Awarded Towards Funeral Expenses Is Just and Reasonable and Therefore, Interference By This Court Is Uncalled for.

8. The Submission of The Learned Counsel For The Insurer That The Tribunal Has Erred In Deducting L/3rd Towards The Personal Expenses of The Deceased Instead of 50% and Also In Applying Multiplier of 18 Taking Into Consideration The Age of The Deceased Instead of Taking The Age of The Younger Parent, Mother Cannot Be Accepted, In View of The Well Settled Law Laid Down By The Apex Court In The Case of P.S. Somanathan and Ors. v. District Insurance Office and Anr. Reported In 2011 ACJ 737 [LQ/SC/2011/263] , Wherein It Is Held That, To Have Uniformity, The Age of The Deceased Is To Be Taken Into Consideration and 1 /3rd Should Be Deducted Towards His Personal Expenses, As He Being The Bachelor, He Could Not Spend Much For His Expenses Since His Parents Will Take Care of Him. If The Ratio of The Aforesaid Decision Is Taken Into Consideration, The Tribunal Is Justified In Deducting L/3rd Towards Personal Expenses of The Deceased and In Adopting Multiplier of 18 Taking The Age of The Deceased. Therefore, I Do Not Find Any Good Grounds To Interfere In The Impugned judgment and Award Passed By The Tribunal. Nor The Insurer Has Made Out Any Good Ground To Entertain This Appeal.

9. For The Foregoing Reasons, The Appeal Filed By The Insurer Is Dismissed As Devoid of Merits.

The Amount Deposited By The Insurer Shall Be Transmitted To The Jurisdictional Tribunal Forthwith. Ordered Accordingly.