Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned and award dated 22nd September 2008, passed in MVC No. 7105/2007, by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-14), (for short, ‘Tribunal’ ), for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs.04.00 Lakhs, is excessive, on the higher side and is liable to be reduced. 2. The facts in brief are that, claimant is the husband of the deceased late Kamalamma. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, the deceased met with a road traffic accident, at about 10.45 A.M, on 03-09-2007, when she was crossing Bannerghatta road in front of NGR Kalyana Mantapa from West to East by observing all the traffic rules, cautiously and when she had crossed major portion of the road, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-41/3008 and sustained grievous injuries. On account of the injuries sustained she succumbed to it on the spot itself. 3. It is the case of the claimant that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in her death and that she was aged about 60 years, working as coolie, earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month and was contributing the entire sum towards the family requirements and in view of her untimely death, the claimant has lost the social status and support and companionship and hopes and aspiration in life. 4. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.04.00 lakhs against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd September 2008. 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.2,85,000/ - under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation. 5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation. 5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal carefully, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel for Insurer as well as the counsel for claimant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Insurer vehemently submits that the Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and taking the age of the deceased for adopting the multiplier instead of deducting 50% towards the personal expenses and adopting multiplier on the basis of the age of the husband of the deceased, as the claimant is only one. Therefore, he submits that the multiplier of 5 having regard to the age of the husband of the deceased may be taken and 50% may be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and reasonable compensation may be awarded by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and reducing the compensation accordingly. 7. After going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- but erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and taking the age of the deceased for adopting the multiplier instead of deducting 50% towards the personal expenses and adopting multiplier on the basis of the age of the husband of the deceased, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for appellant Insurer. In the light of the well settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, in hosts of cases, whenever there is a sole claimant, 50% is to be deducted. Accordingly, I accept the monthly income of the deceased at 3000/-, and deduct 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e.1, 500/-) is deducted from 3000/- towards her personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.1,500/- per month. Accordingly, I accept the monthly income of the deceased at 3000/-, and deduct 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e.1, 500/-) is deducted from 3000/- towards her personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.1,500/- per month. Since the husband of the deceased was aged about 70 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘5’ as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court Sarla Verma’scase ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as against ‘10’adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.90,000/- (i.e.1500/- × 12 ×’5’) as against Rs.2,40,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 8. Further, so far as the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, I am of the view that the same is just and proper and does not call for interference, for the reason that as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the claimant is entitled to a sum of 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,35,000/- as against 2,85,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6%per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs.1,50,000/-. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant / Insurer is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 22nd September 2008, passed in MVC No.7105/2007, by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH – 14), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as against Rs.2,85,000/- awarded by Tribunal , with interest at 6% per annum, reducing the compensation by Rs.1,50,000/-. The appellant – Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest thereon 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 the Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court. The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.