Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this appeal, the appellants-original opponent No. 3 has challenged the judgement and award dated 14.02.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxiliary-I), Kachchh at Bhuj, in M.A.C.P. No. 520 of 1995, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,23,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that while the deceased-Gurucharansingh Tejasingh Shikh was coming from Amritsar by driving his truck bearing registration No. PB-4-2860. At that time one another truck bearing registration No. GJ-3-T-4139 came from wrong side and dashed the said truck. As a result of the said accident, Gurucharansingh Tejasingh Shikh sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 520 of 1995 before the Tribunal for compensation. 2.1. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the respective parties and after considering the evidence on record has held 85% negligence to the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-3-T-4139 and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants-original opponent No. 3. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the claimants. He further submitted that submitted that the claimants are only entitled for ½ amount from the income of the deceased, since the claimants are the parents of the deceased. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and prayed to allow this appeal. 4. Learned advocate for the respondents has opposed the contention of learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned award, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. It appears from the record that the tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the dependency. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. It appears from the record that the tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the dependency. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (Supra) the parents of the deceased are only entitled to 50% amount from the dependency. Even if, Rs. 3000/- is taken as monthly income of the deceased. The claimants are only entitled to Rs. 1500/- and accordingly annually it comes to Rs. 18,000/-. If multiplier of 9 is adopted as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case (Supra), as at the time of accident, the age of the mother was about 60 years, the net amount comes to Rs. 1,62,000/-. 6. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate, the same would met ends of justice. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,77,000/- [Rs. 162,000/- + Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate + Rs. 5000/- under the head of funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal]. 7. Since, the Tribunal has has held the negligence of the deceased to the extent of 15%, therefore, 15% amount is required to be deducted from the total compensation. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,50,450/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,23,000/-. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 1,72,550/- will be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company with interest and cost, if any, if the same is deposited by the appellant with the tribunal. 8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed. P P P P P