Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the Corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 6th November 2006 passed in MVC No.808/2006, by the Member, V Addl. MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-20), (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,53,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs.10.00 Lakhs, is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, being the husband and daughter of deceased Smt. V. Rukamani, filed a claim petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 07:00 P.M., on 28-10-2005, when the deceased was walking on Varthur Main Road, near Subramanya swamy Temple, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-01/F-2481 came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The claim petition filed by claimants – respondents 1 and 2 herein came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 6th November 2006. 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.3,53,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal as also the liability fixed on it, the Corporation has presented this appeal, seeking reduction of compensation and to set aside the liability fastened on it. 4. It is the specific case of the Corporation that when the bus itself was not involved in the accident, the question of indemnifying the liability does not arise. The Tribunal has not looked into nor considered this aspect of the matter and proceeded to fasten the liability on the Corporation. Further, it is the case of the Corporation that the Tribunal also erred in awarding excessive compensation towards loss of dependency, for the reason that the claimants are the husband and daughter and they are entitled to only loss of estate and not under loss of dependency. Further, it is the case of the Corporation that the Tribunal also erred in awarding excessive compensation towards loss of dependency, for the reason that the claimants are the husband and daughter and they are entitled to only loss of estate and not under loss of dependency. Further, the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the higher side and needs to be reduced, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 5. We heard learned counsel for Corporation and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, for consideration length of time. 6. After critical evaluation of the original records available on file, threadbare, and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has slipped into an error while awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, inasmuch as, it has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, where the claimants are only husband and daughter. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for Corporation, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 7. After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal, having regard to the age and avocation of the deceased and the date of accident, has accessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. The same is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. As the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘13’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s Case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). As the claimants are husband and daughter, we deduct 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as against 1/3rd deducted by Tribunal. Thus, the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 would be entitled to compensation towards loss of estate at Rs.2,34,000/- (i.e. Rs.1,5000/- x 12 x ‘13’) as against Rs.2,88,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency. 8. Further, the Tribunal seriously erred in awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- under the conventional heads. The same is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. 8. Further, the Tribunal seriously erred in awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- under the conventional heads. The same is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of ERs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. In all we award a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads as against Rs.65,000/- awarded by Tribunal, In all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- as against Rs.3,53,000/- awarded by Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation of Rs.89,000/-. 9. So far as the specific ground taken by the learned counsel for the Corporation that, the Tribunal grossly erred in fastening the liability on the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation, is concerned, we are of the view that the said specific ground is liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that four independent witnesses have been examined, viz., Mr. Jagadeesh, S Shafi, B. Suresh and Basavaraju S.P. who have stated before the Investigating Officer that on 28-10-2005, at about 7:00 P.M. on Varthur Main Road near Suprabhata Hotel/Subramaniswamy Temple, when a woman was engaged in crossing the road, the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-01/F-2481 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the woman who was engaged in crossing the road, thereby caused the accident, resulting in her death. Further, in the cross examination of RW1, he has categorically admitted that till the date of his evidence, he neither filed counter complaint nor challenged the filing of the charge sheet. It is significant to note that the conductor of the bus has specifically stated that, in view of the dashing of the bus bearing No.KA-01/F-2481, the accident has taken place, resulting in the death of a lady pedestrian. It is significant to note that the conductor of the bus has specifically stated that, in view of the dashing of the bus bearing No.KA-01/F-2481, the accident has taken place, resulting in the death of a lady pedestrian. Neither the Corporation nor the Officer in-charge has produced any credible documentary evidence to establish that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident, Therefore, the Tribunal held that the evidence of RW1 and RW2 is not sufficient to either disbelieve or reject the contents of the documents pertaining to crime No.218/2005 of Airport Traffic Police Station and came to the conclusion that on 28-10-2005 at about 7.00 P.M when the deceased was walking on Varthur Main Road near Subramanya Swamy Temple, Bangalore, RW-1 being driver of the bus bearing No.KA-01/F-2481 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased. Having regard to the said finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. Hence, interference with the said finding is not called for. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 6th November 2006 passed in MVC No.808/2006 on the file of the Member, V Addl, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-20), is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs.3,53,000/- awarded by Tribunal, to Rs.2,64,000/- (reduction being Rs.89,000/-), with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, with interest therein at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The apportionment and the manner of disbursement of compensation ordered by Tribunal get proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court. The amount in deposit by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.