D. APPA RAO, J :-The United India Insurance Company Limited, R.2 in MVOP No.310 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, preferred this appeal against the order of awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, on the death of the deceased by name N. Venkata Subba Reddy. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased Subba Reddy was working as Sales Officer in I.C.I. India Limited, Madras, Branch Office at Hyderabad. While so, on 16.6.1994 at about 11 a.m., when he was going on a vehicle Maruthy Gipsy bearing Regn. No.TSK 7129, the left front wheel of the vehicle brust, due to which, the vehicle was dragged to the left side of the road and dashed to a tree by the side of the road and as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately, when he was shifted to the hospital by the villagers, on the way, he succumbed to the injuries. He was a bachelor, aged about 28 years, working as a Sales Officer. He was drawing a salary of Rs.17,152/- per month in I.C.I. India Limited. He had chances of future promotion etc. He owned Acs.30.00 cts., of land, from which he was getting an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum. On the death of Subba Reddy, his mother along with her two daughters filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,34,272/-. 3. R.1, the owner of the vehicle, did not choose to contest the matter. 4. R.2, the insurance company, put the petitioners to strict proof of each and every fact. It denied that the deceased was employed, working as Sales Officer etc. At any rate, the claim was highly excessive and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The 1st petitioner, in proof of her case, examined herself as. PW.1 and an eye-witness as P.W.2 and co-employee of the deceased as P.W.3 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.14. Refuting her evidence, the insurance company examined its officer as R.W.1 and filed Ex.B.1, a copy of the policy and Ex.B.2, a letter. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the accident was not due to the fault of the driver. It was occurred due to bursting front wheel tyre only. Refuting her evidence, the insurance company examined its officer as R.W.1 and filed Ex.B.1, a copy of the policy and Ex.B.2, a letter. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the accident was not due to the fault of the driver. It was occurred due to bursting front wheel tyre only. Following the decision reported in S. Kaushnuma Begum and others v. The New India Assurance Company and others, 2001 AIR SCW 85, it held that the negligence cannot be attributed to the driver in such cases. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence placed on record, opined that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,00,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd thereon towards personal expenses, he arrived the income at Rs.66,677/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 13', he arrived the compensation at Rs.15,34,481/-. After calculating the amounts towards funeral expenses etc., he had awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurance company preferred this appeal contending that the Court below did not appreciate the facts or law. It committed error in fixing at a higher multiplier 13'. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. The point for consideration is whether compensation awarded was on higher side? 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier fixed at 13' could not have been applied, when the deceased, a bachelor, died leaving the mother who was aged 48 years. It ought to have relied the decision reported in Bhagawandas v. Mohd. Arif, AIR 1988 AP 99 . 10. Coming to the fact, it is not in dispute that the mother was aged about 48 years. Since the deceased died as a bachelor, the age of the mother could be taken while determining the multiplier because the mother could expect the contribution to last for her remaining expected life (vide APSRTC v. G. Ramanaiah, 1988 ACJ 223). The trial Court has adopted the multiplier as per Schedule II of the M.V. Act. In fact, when the annual income is exceeded Rs.40,000/-, the table could not have been referred. Necessarily, the decision reported in Bhagavandas's case (supra), has to be applied. 11. The trial Court has adopted the multiplier as per Schedule II of the M.V. Act. In fact, when the annual income is exceeded Rs.40,000/-, the table could not have been referred. Necessarily, the decision reported in Bhagavandas's case (supra), has to be applied. 11. Our own High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupati Branch, Tirupati v. Mokkala Chandramma and others, 2002 (3) ALD 817 , held that in cases of compensation claimed under Section 166, multiplier fixed in Second Schedule cannot be adopted. It also held that loss of income should be determined adopting the multiplier fixed in Bhagavandas's case (supra) and compensation to be awarded accordingly. Following the said decision, if the multiplier mentioned in the said decision is adopted, it would come to 8.9', rounded to 9'. There is no quarrel as to the various amounts arrived at by the trial Court while determining the income of the deceased. The deceased was working as Senior Sales Officer, drawing basic salary of Rs.6,420/- by the date of his death. If 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, it would come to Rs.4,280/-. The annual contribution would be Rs.51,360/-. 12. The deceased owned Acs.30.00 cents of land. In order to prove the agricultural income, P.W.1 has filed Ex.A.6, Certificate, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, a Public Officer, in discharge of his official duties. The said certificate was not seriously challenged by way of cross-examination. Undoubtedly, when an extent of Acs.30.00 cts., was owned by the deceased, it is reasonable to estimate at Rs.1.00 lakh per annum, a mere Rs.3,000/per acre. Since the lands are agricultural lands, the trial Court has taken 50% of the income towards the 'reduction in efficiency' in the sense that his service was only managerial. Therefore, the loss of dependency from agriculture was estimated to Rs.66,677/-. If both incomes are included, it would come to Rs.1,18,037/-. If multiplied by relevant multiplier at 9', it would come to Rs.10,62,333/-, to which an amount of Rs.30,000/- is added towards loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., it would come to Rs.10,92,333/-, rounded to Rs.10,95,000/-, which we feel reasonable and modest. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the decree in M.V.O.P. No.310 of 2002, dated 11.3.2003 and the petitioners-claimants are entitled to Rs.10,95,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the decree in M.V.O.P. No.310 of 2002, dated 11.3.2003 and the petitioners-claimants are entitled to Rs.10,95,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.