Judgment :- 1. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 23. 2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Thiruvallur. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 appear through counsel and by consent, the appeal itself is taken for final disposal. 3. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 7. 2005. The deceased G. Srinivasan aged 25 years, a bachelor, said to be working as an Air Conditioner Service Mechanic, was riding a Bajaj M-80 when he was hit by a van insured with the appellant insurance company and in that accident, he died. On his death, mother aged 47 years, father aged 61 years and a sister aged 22 years, filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-, stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- p.m. 4. In support of the claim, mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Senthilkumar, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. The relevant documents are Ex.P5, the post mortem certificate and Ex.P11, the salary confirmation letter. .5. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- p.m. However, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.2,953/- p.m. of which 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the contribution to the family was taken as Rs.2,000/-p.m. equivalent to Rs.24,000/- p.a. Based on the driving licence, the age of the deceased was taken as 25 years. The Tribunal adopted 17 multiplier and fixed the total loss of pecuniary benefits in a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-. (Rs.24,000/-x 17= Rs.4,08,000/-) In addition to the above, the Tribunal granted compensation on conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. .TABLE 6. In appeal, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side since the deceased was a bachelor earning member and the contribution to the dependents will not be available for the rest of their life. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 . 7. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar - vs. - Bidya Dhar Dutta reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 = 2006 (3) SCC 242 . 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants stated that no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the mother, father and the sister and the income fixed by the Tribunal is very low and contrary to the evidence on record. 8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugars case (cited supra), for a bachelor earning member the appropriate multiplier will be "12". In this case, the claimants are the mother, father and unmarried sister. The possibility of the deceased getting married and the contribution to the dependents getting reduced has to be considered. However, in this case, the income of the deceased, an air conditioning mechanic fixed at Rs.2953/- is marginally lower as the accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The living wages will be much more. No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents and the sister on the death of the deceased. 9. Considering all these aspects and in view of the Apex Court decision cited above, the proper multiplier in this case that can be taken is 12 as against 17adopted by the Tribunal. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased is fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month (i.e.) Rs.30,000/-per annum. Accordingly, the loss of pecuniary benefits will be Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 12 = Rs. 3,60,000/-) Further, the mother, father and sister are entitled to just compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transport expenses. Accordingly, the award stands modified as follows:- .10. Since the accident happened in the year 2005 and the award was passed in the year 2007, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- TABLE .(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,89,000/- from Rs.4,10,000/-. Out of the award amount, the first claimant / mother is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs. Second and third claimants/ father and sister are entitled to Rs.94,500/- each with proportionate interest. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- TABLE .(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.3,89,000/- from Rs.4,10,000/-. Out of the award amount, the first claimant / mother is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs. Second and third claimants/ father and sister are entitled to Rs.94,500/- each with proportionate interest. (ii) The award amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount as apportioned by this Court. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. (v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed.