JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.08.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 41 of 1990 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.186000/- (Rs.151200/- future loss of income + Rs.10000/- for pain, shock and suffering + Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses + Rs.20000/- towards loss of expectation of life) with running interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till realization. 2. On 18.07.1989 Sanjay Vaghela was proceeding on his bicycle in Sabarmnati area. At that time, one Matador bearing registration No. GRR 5393 dashed with the bicycle. As a result thereof, Sanjay sustained serious injuries and he died in the hospital. The parents of the deceased therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in quantifying the award at Rs.186000/-; that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting ?rd amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; that looking to the fact that the deceased was unmarried and one real claimant is the mother of the deceased, 50% is required to be deducted towards personal expenses in view of the decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121; that multiplier of 18 is on higher side; that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.10000/- towards pain, shock and suffering inspite of the fact that the deceased died on the spot; that the amount of Rs.20000/- towards loss of expectation of life is on higher side and that the interest awarded at the rate of 15% is on higher side. 4. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, in absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly assessed the income of Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.12000/- per year. As far as loss of dependency benefit is concerned, it is found that that the deceased was bachelor and the parents are the claimant. As far as loss of dependency benefit is concerned, it is found that that the deceased was bachelor and the parents are the claimant. Therefore in view of the decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Hence 50% benefit of the compensation should be computed by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1000/- as base and the dependency benefits for the claimants would come to Rs.500/- and on annual basis it would come to Rs.6000/-. As far as multiplier is concerned, the age of the mother is required to be considered. The age of the mother was 45 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 will be applied for future loss of income as per the ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma (supra). By applying multiplier of 14, the future loss of income would come to Rs.84000/- (Rs.6000/- x 14). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.151200/- for future loss of income which in my opinion is on higher side. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.67200/-. 5. Further, the amount of Rs.20000/- towards loss to expectation of life is on higher side. It should be Rs.10000/-. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.10,000/-. The amount of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses is just and proper. However, the claimants are not entitled for Rs.10000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 6. Accordingly, the insurance company is liable to pay total compensation in the sum of Rs.99000/- Rs.84000/- towards future loss of income + Rs.10000/- towards loss to the estate + Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.186000/- as compensation. Therefore, an excess amount of Rs.87000/- (Rs.350000/- - Rs.242800/-) shall be refunded to the insurance company with the proportionate interest. 7. Further, looking to the trend of rate of interest, the learned Tribunal ought not to have granted interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The appropriate rate of interest would have been 12%. Therefore the rate of interest is reduced to 12% from 15%. The excess amount of interest to be returned to the Insurance Company. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.