JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, as against the award and decree in M.C.O.P.No.345/97 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II), Coimbatore. 2. The respondents 1 and 2/claimants have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for the death of one Mani alias Manikandan in the motor accident occurred on 12.1.1997. The case of the claimants is that on 12.1.1997 at about 10.50 P.M., the deceased was sitting and travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 37 K 7350, which was driven by one A. Joseph Vijayakumar and they proceeded from Coimbatore towards Pollachi slowly by adhering the traffic rules and regulations and at that time, when they were nearing Kovilpalayam bus stop, the appellant's C.T.C. Bus bearing Registration No. TN 38 N 0107, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without giving any horn sound and dashed against the above said Joseph Vijayakumar and the pillion rider Mani alias Manikandan and in the above said accident, the said Joseph Vijayakumar died on the spot and Mani alias Manikandan was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore and admitted as inpatient and taking treatment and died next day and the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent/first respondent in O.P., who is the driver of the appellant's bus and the age of Mani alias Manikandan is 24 years and was working as helper in S.S. Heat Recover Engineers and earned Rs.2,000/- per month and therefore, they claimed a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs from the respondents. 3. The third respondent herein/first respondent in the main O.P., who is the driver of the above said bus, remained ex-parte. The appellant who is the second respondent in the main O.P., has denied the above said accident and contended that the accident has occurred only due to carelessness and negligence and rashness of the driver of the motorcycle and he is solely responsible for the death of the pillion rider and therefore, the appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay compensation and all other allegations should be proved by the claimants and also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, they have examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P9 and on the side of the appellant/second respondent in O.P., it has examined one witness as R.W.1 and not marked any document. 5. On consideration of the above said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and finally held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent herein who is the driver of the appellant's bus. The appellant has not challenged the above said finding of the Tribunal in this appeal. A perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence, namely Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 copy of charge sheet, Ex.P3 postmortem certificate of Mani alias Manikandan and Ex.P4 death certificate, would reveal that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/second respondent's bus as held by the Tribunal. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased Mani alias Manikandan as 24 years. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are only parents of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are only parents of the deceased and in the above circumstances, the age of the mother of the deceased Mani alias Manikandan alone is to be taken for calculating the compensation, but the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased and fixed the compensation. 7. It is not disputed that the deceased Mani alias Manikandan was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case reported in ((2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121), in the case of bachelor, the age of the mother alone is to be taken for calculating compensation. In this case, the age of the mother of the deceased Mani alias Manikandan is mentioned as 50 years in the claim petition and therefore, the above said age alone is to be considered for taking multiplier (i.e.) 13. In this case, the age of the mother of the deceased Mani alias Manikandan is mentioned as 50 years in the claim petition and therefore, the above said age alone is to be considered for taking multiplier (i.e.) 13. With regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,400/-on the basis of Ex.P6 salary certificate, and therefore, 1/3rd should be deducted from the above said amount. Therefore, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,45,600/-, namely Rs.1,400/- x 12 x 13 / 1/3. 8. As regards the award of compensation on other heads, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/-for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not seriously objected to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. Therefore, I am of the view that the award of compensation fixed by Tribunal, is to be reduced and fixed as under: Loss of income 1400 x 12 x 13 / 1/3 : Rs.1,45,600 Loss of love and affection : Rs.1,00,000 Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000 Total : Rs.2,50,600 9. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation is reduced and fixed as Rs.2,50,600/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal, will hold good. No costs.