Judgment :- R.SUBBIAH, J. Challenging the Award dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.3), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2002, United India Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are claimants, respondents 3 to 5 are respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Appellant is 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts are as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the parents of one Dipesh K.Bafna, who had died in a motor accident that had occurred on 17.06.2000. According to the claimants, on 17.06.2000 at about 1.45 PM, their son was driving a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.TN-38-K-4405 on Mettupalayam Road from Coimbatore towards Mettupalayam at a normal speed. While so, a lorry suddenly entered the road on the left side and on seeing the lorry, in order to avoid the accident, the said Dipesh K.Bafna swerved the car little to the right side. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN-38-N-0354 belonging to the 3rd respondent Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and in that process, the said Dipesh K.Bafna died on the spot. Hence, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition as against the owner of the car as well as its insurer and also the Transport Corporation bus. 3. Resisting the said case, Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the 3rd respondent Transport Corporation is only liable to pay compensation since the bus had dashed against the car driven by the deceased and they are not the necessary party to the case. 4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Batur as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15. On the other side, 4th respondent (K.Subramanian - driver of Transport Corporation bus), Branch Manager of Transport Corporation, Chartered Account of Blossom Inc., and one employee of Appellant Insurance Company were examined as R.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked. The Tribunal after going through the evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 3rd respondent Transport Corporation bus. The Tribunal after going through the evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 3rd respondent Transport Corporation bus. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has assessed compensation under different heads and passed an award for a sum of Rs.16,36,500/-, directing the Transport Corporation, its driver, owner of the car and Insurance Company jointly and severally to pay the same. Questioning the said Award, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is the main submission of Appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of head on collision, it ought to have apportioned the liability between the owner of the insured car as well as Transport Corporation. But instead of doing so, the Tribunal has rendered a finding that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount. It is the further submission of Insurance Company that at the time of accident, car was driven by the deceased himself. When that being the position, the question of paying compensation amount by the Insurance Company may not be legally correct. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2- claimants as well as 3rd respondent Transport Corporation made their submissions, supporting the Award passed by the Tribunal. 8. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that there is some force in the submission made on behalf of Insurance Company. When the manner of the accident, as narrated in the evidence would show that the accident was the result of head on collision, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability equally on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus as well as the driver of the insured vehicle. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the finding rendered by the tribunal that the Transport Corporation as well as the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation is liable to be modified. Accordingly, we fix the liability on the part of Transport Corporation as well as the owner of the car and its insurer, namely, Appellant Insurance Company at the ratio of 50% each. Accordingly, we fix the liability on the part of Transport Corporation as well as the owner of the car and its insurer, namely, Appellant Insurance Company at the ratio of 50% each. In view of the above, Appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of claimants that the deceased was a Diploma Holder in Fashion Technology at J.D.Institute, Bangalore and was doing a business called M/s.Blossom Inc. at Tiruppur. The turnover of the business for the year 1999-2000 was about Rs.90 lakhs. In order to substantiate the income earned by the deceased, Profit and Loss Account Statement of the firm, Partnership Deed, copy of Certificate of Registration of the firm were marked as Exs.P-5, P-6 and P-9; but the Tribunal has rejected all the documents stating that Ex.P-10-Profit and Loss Account Statement during 1998-99 does not refelect the involvement of the deceased in the business in any manner. However, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased, who was aged about 23 at the time of his death, arrived at a sum of Rs.24,48,000/- as total loss of income and awarded Rs.16,32,000/-after deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10. We do not find any error in the monthly income of Rs.12,000/-fixed by the Tribunal; however, the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side since the claim was made by the parents of the deceased. In some of the recent judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, in the death of bachelor, the age of the mother of the deceased should be taken into consideration for applying multiplier. In the instant case, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the lesser multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased. As per the averments in the claim petition, the mother was 43 years at the time of occurrence. As per the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, for the age of 43, the proper multiplier is 15. Hence, the amount awarded under the head 'loss of income' has to be modified by applying the multiplier 15. 11. It is not in dispute that the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-. As per the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, for the age of 43, the proper multiplier is 15. Hence, the amount awarded under the head 'loss of income' has to be modified by applying the multiplier 15. 11. It is not in dispute that the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, the balance amount would be Rs.8,000/-, which sum could be taken as monthly loss of contribution to the family. If so, the annual loss of contribution is Rs.96,000/-. If multiplier of 15 is applied, the amount comes to Rs.14,40,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 months x 15 years). Hence, Rs.16,32,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is reduced to Rs.14,40,000/-. 12. It is seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the claimants under the head "loss of love and affection" for the death of their son. Considering the fact that claimants have lost their son aged 22 years, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is hereby awarded towards loss of love and affection. The amounts awarded under other heads, in our view, are proper and hence, they are confirmed. Consequently, award amount of Rs.16,36,500/- is hereby reduced to Rs.14,75,000/- and the details are as follows: Rs. Loss of income 14,40,000.00 Loss of love and affection 30,000.00 Funeral expenses 2,000.00 Loss of estate 2,500.00 ------------------ Total 14,74,500.00 ------------------ rounded off to Rs.14,75,000.00, which is payable by Appellant Insurance Company and Transport Corporation at the ratio of 50% each. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submitted that though the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation, considering the fact that the Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount and also considering the fact that respondents 1 and 2 -Claimants had lost their son in the accident, we are not inclined to set aside the liability fixed by the Tribunal on the part of Appellant Insurance Company. However, we make it clear that this judgment cannot be quoted as a precedent for other cases. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. however, there is no order as to costs. Connected M.P.is closed. Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit 50% modified compensation amount, namely, Rs.7,37,500/-before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. however, there is no order as to costs. Connected M.P.is closed. Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit 50% modified compensation amount, namely, Rs.7,37,500/-before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. 3rd respondent Transport Corporation is also directed to deposit Rs.7,37,500/- before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, and on such deposit, respondents 1 and 2-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest. Appellant Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the amount more than that of 50% of modified amount with accrued interest, if the entire award amount has already been deposited.