JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. In a motor accident on 8.10.2003 one Lalrinmawia, while riding a bike, collided with a truck and sustained grievous injuries. He died in Greenwood Hospital on 11.10.2003. He was only 27 years and bachelor. A police case was registered. According to the police verification report the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The father of the deceased, Mr. Zokhuma, instituted claim case for compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-. The mother of the deceased neither has joined as claimant nor has been impleaded as respondent in the claim petition. The monthly income of the victim whose occupation was daily wage earner has been stated to be Rs. 2500/- per month. The learned tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 124 of 2003 has awarded Rs. 3,75,000/- by judgment and award dated 12.6.2006. The said amount has been directed to carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from date of filing the claim petition till the entire amount is realized. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. being insurer of the truck has been held liable to pay the money. Aggrieved, the said insurer has preferred the present appeal. 2. By order dated 5.4.2005 the tribunal permitted the insurer to contest the claim on all grounds including those available to the owner of the offending vehicle who failed to contest the claim. Though the accident has not been denied, the insurer in the written objection contended, inter alia, that from the G.D. Entry No. 256 dated 9.10.2003 of Bawngkawn Police Station, a copy of which was collected by the investigator of the insurer, a different story had emerged. The description of the accident in the said GD. Entry would show that on 8.10.2003 at 8.30 a.m. one Maruti Van Taxi No. MZ-01-0888 dashed against two school girls at Sentlang Mualveng causing injuries to them. But according to the FIR lodged by a sub-inspector of Traffic branch, one bike had collided with a truck MZ-01A-7303 in which the bike rider had sustained injuries and died later. Though by referring to the occurrence narrated in the GD. Entry the insurer tried to take a stand that the truck in question was not involved in any accident on that day, the two facts in the GD. Entry and the FIR, if carefully gone into, would indicate two different accidents. Though by referring to the occurrence narrated in the GD. Entry the insurer tried to take a stand that the truck in question was not involved in any accident on that day, the two facts in the GD. Entry and the FIR, if carefully gone into, would indicate two different accidents. The instant proceeding is in connection with the accident described in the FIR and, therefore, the contention of the Insurer on the ground of the other accident was found to have no substance. 3. Mr. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant, would argue that the present appeal is virtually directed against the wrong assessment of compensation made by the tribunal proceeding from wrong premises. He submits that the victim died bachelor at the age of 27 and, therefore, the age of the claimant father should have been taken as the basis for choosing the multiplier. According to the claimant himself he was aged 65 years and, therefore the multiplier should be 8 as per the second schedule of the Act which has been pressed into service for the purpose of calculation of the amount awarded. But learned Tribunal has taken 18 as the multiplier on the basis of the age of the victim which is evidently erroneous. His other submission is that the tribunal made another mistake by holding that 2/3rd of the income of the deceased was the contribution to his parents. The tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the deceased was aged 27 and so he could not have contributed 2/3rd of his income for his parents had he survived and owned a family after marriage. In such a situation it can be held at best that if the deceased had survived he would not have contributed more than 1/3rd of his income for his parents. Considering from this angle the learned tribunal should have assessed the amount of compensation by applying 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as the loss of the parents. 4. The limited challenge to the judgment and award being on the questions of correct multiplier and quantum of loss of support, the other grounds of challenge having been abandoned, the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent could virtually offer no resistance. 4. The limited challenge to the judgment and award being on the questions of correct multiplier and quantum of loss of support, the other grounds of challenge having been abandoned, the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent could virtually offer no resistance. 4.1 From the above discussions it is apparent that the multiplier should have been chosen on the basis of the age of the claimant-father who was 65 as stated by him in his deposition. As the mother has not joined in the claim or has not been impleaded as respondent, her age could not come for consideration for the purpose of selecting the multiplier. Thus, the correct multiplier is found to be 8. Again, as the deceased died bachelor at the age of 27 the correct view should be that the parents would not have got financial support more than 1/3rd of the income of their deceased son if he had survived and in all probability would have got a family of his own. Considered thus, the amount awarded is not sustainable in law and the same has to be re-calculated on the basis aforementioned. Thus, the amount of compensation shall be Rs. 2500 x 12 x 8 x 1÷3= 80,000/-. With this amount Rs. 2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- as loss of estate shall be added to make the amount of Rs. 84,500/-. The amount shall, however, bear simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, if the same is paid within a period of two months from today failing which the interest shall be 12% per annum from the date of expiry of two months. 5. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the above extent modifying the amount awarded as aforementioned without any order as to cost. Appeal allowed