Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 15th April 2005, passed in M.V.C.No. 2652/1999, by the Addl. Judge, Court of Small Cases, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore, SCCH-5, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,28,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs.10.00 Lakhs, is excessive and exorbitant. 2. The facts in brief are that the claimants being the father, brother and sisters of the deceased, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the appellant – Insurer and others, on account of the death of the deceased V. Manjunatha, in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 1:30 P.M, on 22-06-1999. it was their case that on the said date and time, the deceased V. Manjunath was in the Eicher Lorry bearing No.CNZ-5828 as a cleaner and moving towards Kolar from Bangalore. At that time, a Tata Tempo bearing Registration No.KA-05/A-5648 being driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the Eicher Lorry. On account of the same, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 22 years, working as cleaner in the Lorry and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and in view of the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost the breadwinner of the family and are in great financial distress and have to be compensated adequately. 3. The claim petition filed by the claimants had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 15th April 2005. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs,3,28,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by Tribunal, the Insurance Company has presented this appeal, seeking reduction of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive, exorbitant and is on the higher side. 4. We have heard learned counsel for Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for claimants, for considerable length of time. 5. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by Tribunal, the Insurance Company has presented this appeal, seeking reduction of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive, exorbitant and is on the higher side. 4. We have heard learned counsel for Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for claimants, for considerable length of time. 5. The principal submission canvassed by learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company is that, the Tribunal has committed grave error in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased while arriving at loss of dependency, when in fact, it ought to have deducted 50%, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), since he was a bachelor. Therefore, he submitted that, 50% may be deducted from out the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 6. After careful evaluation of the original records available on file, threadbare, and after perusal of the judgment and award impugned, it can be seen that the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is also not disputed that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was working as cleaner in the Lorry. The Tribunal, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and we accept the same. The dependents are five in number. Hence, in view of the said fact, even though the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and reject the specific contention of the learned counsel for Insurer to deduct 50%. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (Rs.1,000/-) is deducted, the net monthly income comes to Rs.2,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the parent has to be taken into consideration. The age of the parent was 58 years and the proper multiplier applicable is ‘9’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Accordingly, we re-determine compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.2,16,000/- (i.e. Rs.2,000/- x 12x ‘9’) as against Rs.2,88,000/-awarded by Tribunal. 7. The age of the parent was 58 years and the proper multiplier applicable is ‘9’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Accordingly, we re-determine compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.2,16,000/- (i.e. Rs.2,000/- x 12x ‘9’) as against Rs.2,88,000/-awarded by Tribunal. 7. So far as the compensation of a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, the same is just and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for interference. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstance of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by Insurance Company is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th April 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.2652/1999, by the Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore SCCH-5, is hereby modified, reducing the compensation awarded by Tribunal from Rs.3,28,000/-to a sum of Rs.2,56,000/- (reduction being a sum of Rs.72,000/-) with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest thereon, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The entire amount deposited by Insurer is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. The apportionment of compensation amount amongst the claimants and the manner of disbursement shall be proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation by this Court. Office to draw award, accordingly.