Judgment 1. The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., aggrieved as against the award of the Tribunal, directed this appeal. 2. On 14.01.1993, Sugavanam died in a road accident. His parents/respondents claimed compensation. The Tribunal totally awarded them Rs.3,13,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would assail the award on two grounds. Firstly, the rider of the bike in which the deceased travelled had also contributed to the accident, when especially it is a case of collision of two vehicles. Secondly, the deceased died a bachelor, however, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier "18" disregarded the age of the mother, the average age of his parents, further, instead of 50%, it had deducted 1/3rd from the notional income of the deceased towards his pleasure and other expenses. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that this case has certain special facts. The deceased, died at a very young age. His parents, who are in advanced age, solely depended on him. Further, the deceased being a Lawyer had a bright career spanning over long years had much scope for acceleration in his profession, thus, there is loss of future prospectus to his parents. Further, a low income alone has been taken by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, in view of the special facts of the case, the Tribunal came to adopt the said multiplier and effected 1/3rd deduction. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions. 6. On the date of accident, the two wheeler was driven by one Gunasekaran. The deceased travelled in the bike as a pillion-rider. The evidence of P.W.2 Rajamohan, the eye-witness to the accident is that R.W.1 the bus driver, came driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. Ex.P1 F.I.R. has been registered as against R.W.1 Kaliyamoorthy. He did not make any complaint either to police or to his Corporation as to his version of the manner of the road accident. In the circumstances, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the bus driver is responsible for the accident. We concur with this finding. 7. Admittedly, the deceased died a bachelor. Then he was 30 years old. He has become a lawyer in 1989(see Ex.P6 Bar enrollment certificate). He died in 1993. At the time of his death, he was having 4 years Bar experience. He was practicing in the Mofussil. We concur with this finding. 7. Admittedly, the deceased died a bachelor. Then he was 30 years old. He has become a lawyer in 1989(see Ex.P6 Bar enrollment certificate). He died in 1993. At the time of his death, he was having 4 years Bar experience. He was practicing in the Mofussil. It is not uncommon in Mofussils lawyers with so much experience setting up independent practice. 8. For a lawyer, as regards his professional income, sky is the limit. Professional income depends on his increased years of experience at the Bar. In this case, such a professional at a very young age had lost his life. So, there is great loss of benefits of future prospectus of his profession to his parents.Further, his father and mother, who are 65 and 62 years old respectively have wholly depended on him. 9. In the facts and circumstances, taking note of these aspects, the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier 18 and deducted 1/3rd from his notional income. Further, the Tribunal had taken only Rs.2,000/- as his monthly professional income. For a young practicing lawyer with so much Bar experience it cannot be said that the Tribunal had taken a very high income. Further, only Rs.3,13,000/-has been granted. In the circumstances, we don't want to disturb the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Claims Tribunal is confirmed. The respondents are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount, if not already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.