Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the award and decree dated 26.03.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur. 2. The appellant is the second respondent/insurance company in the claim petition. The claimants therein are the parents of a boy aged about 22 years, who died in a road accident at about 6.00 a.m. on 23.06.2004. He was engaged as a cleaner of a lorry and travelling therein, when the bus insured by the appellant dashed against the lorry causing an instantaneous fire resulting in the death of drivers of both vehicles; the petitioner’s son/cleaner, as also a few of the passengers. Informing that their son was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- p.m. in his occupation as a cleaner of the lorry, the claimants had sought compensation in a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses and marked three exhibits, which are as follows: 1. Ex.P1:True copy of FIR 2. Ex.P2:Postmortem certificate 3. Ex.P3:Legal heirship certificate None were examined on behalf of the appellant Insurance company nor any exhibits marked. 4. The Tribunal found the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant to be solely responsible for the accident and placing the earning of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- p.m., deducted a sum of Rs.650/- towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17, found the dependency at Rs.2,75,400/- and rounded of the same to Rs.2,75,500/-. A sum of Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards damages to belongings of the deceased were awarded. The net sum of Rs.2,79,000/- was directed to be paid at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 5. In the appeal, neither the accident, the negligence of the bus driver nor the liability to pay compensation is disputed. What is agitated is that in the circumstances of the case, the bus driver alone could not have been found responsible for the accident, that there would have been contributory negligence also by the driver of the lorry and therefore, this would be a case of composite negligence, where both the appellant/insurer of the bus as also the insurer of the lorry ought to have made liable. It also is submitted that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the age of the deceased as the determining factor and the age of the mother of the deceased dependent ought to have formed the basis of arriving at the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants. 6. The respondents have been served, but none appear on their behalf. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court, while agreeing with the contention raised that the age of the dependent mother ought to have been the basis for calculation of the pecuniary loss suffered, is not inclined to interfere with the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of his death. The age of the mother could reasonably be put at 40 years. This would make applicable the multiplier of 15. Taking the monthly contribution of the deceased at Rs.1,350/- p.m. and applying the multiplier of 15, the amount payable towards loss of dependency would be Rs.2,43,000/-. This Court finds that no allowance has been made by the Tribunal under the head, loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.30,000/- may be awarded under such head. While the loss towards belongings of the deceased at Rs.1,000/-may be sustained, the award towards funeral expenses may be raised to Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.2,500/-as ordered by the Tribunal. Calculated as above, the award of compensation of Rs.2,79,000/- ordered by the Tribunal is found to be reasonable. 8. It is informed that the entire sum payable under the award of the Tribunal has been deposited by the appellant. The respondents/claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.