Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arose out of the claims filed in respect of the same accident that took place on 28.9.1996. The legal heirs of one Sethuraman, who died in the accident filed M.C.O.P. No. 1145 of 2000. The legal heirs of Karthikeyan filed M.C.O.P. No. 1429 of 2000. The compensation claimed in M.C.O.P. No. 1145 of 2000 was a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- lakhs. In M.C.O.P. No. 1429 of 2000, the claim made was a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Against that award, these two appeals have been filed. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident took place at 7.30 a.m. on 28.9.1996 when the car driven by one of the deceased viz., Sethuraman and was going South to North on Ullundurpet Road, he noticed the lorry insured by the appellant coming from the opposite side direction and moving on the wrong side, thereby, he slowed down the car and swerved to the extreme West. In spite of the best efforts, the oncoming lorry hit against the car and another lorry coming from behind the car also dashed against the car. With the result, the car was jammed between the two lorries, resulting in two deaths. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the impact was on account of the conduct of both the lorries, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the negligence between the appellant and the fifth respondent/insurance company which had insured the lorry that came from behind the car. The learned counsel also read the relevant portion of the evidence. PW.2, who was the wife of the deceased Sethuraman, was also the eye-witness. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred with regard to the finding as regards to the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased Karthikeyan was a bachelor and therefore, different parameters ought to have been fixed for fixing the compensation in this regard. 4. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in Smt. Sarala Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(2) TN MAC 1=2009-4-L.W.561 (SC)]. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that submitted that the award does not deserve any interference. 6. 4. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in Smt. Sarala Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(2) TN MAC 1=2009-4-L.W.561 (SC)]. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that submitted that the award does not deserve any interference. 6. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the lorry insured by the appellant was clearly on the wrong side whereas the lorry insured by the fifth respondent was being driven behind the car and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence squarely on the lorry insured by the appellant. 7. The Tribunal had taken note of the evidence of PW.2, who had clearly stated that neither the car nor the lorry that came from behind it was responsible for the accident and it was only the lorry that came from the opposite side that was responsible for the accident. She has also stated in her evidence that the lorry coming from behind the car did not attempt to overtake their car. In view of such clear and categorical ocular evidence, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the lorry insured by the appellant was responsible for the accident and therefore, held that the appellant alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. We do not think that it deserves any interference. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, we will first take C.M.A. No. 1187 of 2002, which relates to the deceased Karthikeayan’s legal heirs. He was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. According to the claimants, he was the proprietor of one Karthikeyan agency and proprietor of lorry transport and manager of O.A.A Traders. The evidence of the sister who gave evidence as PW.1 has stated that she had with her brother had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to buy a lorry and that he was doing some iron business as a broker and he was the manager in OAA traders and as regards the income, she has said that the deceased was only an accountant in OAA traders and will not know the correct details. The evidence before the Tribunal showed that the deceased was receiving Rs. 2,500/- as monthly salary. The Tribunal took note of the evidence of the sister regarding the deceased doing iron and steel business etc., and roughly fixed Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly income. It had deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses. The evidence before the Tribunal showed that the deceased was receiving Rs. 2,500/- as monthly salary. The Tribunal took note of the evidence of the sister regarding the deceased doing iron and steel business etc., and roughly fixed Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly income. It had deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses. He is a bachelor. 9. Further, it is seen from her evidence that the sister of the deceased is married and her husband was also living along with her and her mother and the deceased brother. Therefore, this family was not solely dependant on the deceased Karthikeyan. 10. In Smt. Sarla Verma’s case 2009-4-L.W. 561, the deduction is fixed at 50% in case of a bachelor. Therefore, we deduct 50% of the monthly income towards personal expenses as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case. So, 50% of the income comes to Rs. 6,000 X = Rs. 3,000 p.m., dependency. For one year = Rs. 3,000 X 12 = 36,000/-, which is the annual income. The multiplier that was adopted by the Tribunal viz., 18 is not correct, since in case of bachelors, the age of the parents should be taken into account. Mother of the deceased was aged 47 years at the time of the accident. For this age group, multiplier is 13. If we multiply Rs. 36,000 X 13, it comes to Rs. 4,68,000/-. So, the loss of dependency is Rs. 4,68,000/- For loss of love and affection of the mother Rs. 20,000/- For loss of love and affection of the sister Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 5,00,000/- Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only). Out of this Rs. 5,00,000/-, the mother of the deceased will receive a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh only) and sister of the deceased will receive a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). 11. With regard to the claim in C.M.A. No. 1188 of 2002 in respect of legal heirs of Sethuraman, he was 32 years at the time of death. He was, originally, a partner in Chakra Imports, he was living with wife, aged 28 years; and 3 children aged 12 years, 7 years and 1 year and the mother was aged 56 years. According to the claimants, he was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He was, originally, a partner in Chakra Imports, he was living with wife, aged 28 years; and 3 children aged 12 years, 7 years and 1 year and the mother was aged 56 years. According to the claimants, he was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is clear from the evidence that he had been doing import and export business, which had been closed down after his death. He was also assessed to sales tax. His passport was also produced to show that he was exporting and importing goods from Malaysia. So, the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs. 15,000/- per month, which we do not think it one the higher side and after deduction of 1/3 rd towards personal expenses from Rs. 15,000/-, the contribution by the deceased to the family comes to Rs. 10,000/-per month, which we do not think as on the higher side. So, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs. 10,000 X 12 = 1,20,000. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier 17. We reduce it to 16 following Smt. Sarla Verma’s case 2009-4-L.W. 561. So, the loss of dependency: Rs. 19,20,000 [Rs. 1,20,000 X 16 = 19,20,000/-] Loss of consortium: Rs. 20,000 For loss of love and affection towards 3 children (Rs. 3,000 X 10):Rs. 30,000 Loss of love and affection to mother: Rs. 10,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 19,85,000/- Out of this Rs. 19,85,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakh and eighty five thousand only), Wife viz., S. Vimala is entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh only), elder son viz., S. Ilangovan is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakh and seventy thousand only), and daughter viz., S. Salini is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees tow lakh and seventy thousand only), and minor S. Dhayalan is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakh and seventy thousand only). Mother of the deceased, viz., Rajammal is entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). Now, Elangovan and S.Salini who are son and daughter of the deceased Sethuraman, would have attained the majority. Minor S.Dhayalan would be 15 years old. Therefore, minor S.Dhayalan’s share amount must be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and thereafter, renewable periodically, till he attains the majority. Minor’s mother, Tmt. Now, Elangovan and S.Salini who are son and daughter of the deceased Sethuraman, would have attained the majority. Minor S.Dhayalan would be 15 years old. Therefore, minor S.Dhayalan’s share amount must be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and thereafter, renewable periodically, till he attains the majority. Minor’s mother, Tmt. S. Vimala is entitled to receive the accrued interests on the deposit once in three months for his expenses directly from the bank. In other aspects, the order of the Tribunal remains unaltered. 12. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.