Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19th September 2007, passed in MVC No 8006/2006, by the XIX Additional judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (For short ‘Tribunal’), for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for 25.00 Lakhs, is excessive, on the higher side and is therefore, liable to be reduced. 2. The facts in brief are that, claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimant No.2. is the minor son of the deceased late M. Babu. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contenting that, the deceased met with a road traffic accident, at about 12.30 P.M, on 06-11-2006, when he was travelling on his Scooter bearing No.CKB-6794 On Dr. Marigowda Road, slowly and cautiously on the left side, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01/F-1232. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death and that he was doing business in Automobile spare parts, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15.000 /- per month and was contributing the entire sum towards the family requirements and in view of his untimely death, the family is displaced and they are in great financial distress and have lost the only hope and aspiration in life and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 4. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00 lakhs against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 19th September, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.8,01,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation. 5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation. 5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal carefully, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel for Corporation as well as the counsel for claimants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Corporation vehemently submits that the Tribunal has erred in not fixing any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the scooter, when in fact, he also contributed to the occurrence of accident. He submits that the driver of the BMTC bus was driving the Bus slowly and cautiously on Dr. Marigowda Road, but noticed that, one bullock cart was coming from opposite direction and at the same time one Scooter was coming from left side of bullock cart. On seeing the bus coming from opposite direction, bullocks were afraid and all of a sudden started dragging bullock cart towards right side. In the meanwhile bullock cart hit the scooterist, i.e. the deceased. As a result of the same, the deceased fell on right side guard stone and sustained grievous head injuries and then succumbed to the same. The driver of the bus did not even touch either the deceased or his scooter. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus, in the occurrence of the accident. Further, he submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at 81,545/-per annum, purely relying on Exhibits P10 and P11. The same cannot be sustained and is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation substantially. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified, by reducing the compensation and fixing some percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased scooterist also. 7. The same cannot be sustained and is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation substantially. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified, by reducing the compensation and fixing some percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased scooterist also. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimants respondents submits that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, including FIR at Ex.P3, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and recorded a clear finding of fact, at paragraph 10 of its judgment holding that, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC bus, belonging to the appellant Corporation the accident has occurred and that the jurisdictional police have registered the case and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the scooter. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, does not call for interference. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are: I) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus? II) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced? Re- Point I]:The occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased scooterist are not in dispute. It is the specific case of the appellant Corporation that, because of the hitting of the scooter, by the bullock cart, he fell down towards the right side guard stone and sustained grievous head injuries and thereafter succumbed to the same and that the driver of the Bus did not either touch the deceased or his scooter and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the Bus. The said submission of the learned counsel for appellant Corporation cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected for the reason that, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has come to the conclusion that it is on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus, the accident has occurred resulting in the death of the deceased. RW1, the driver of the offending vehicle, except making self serving statement, has not produced any supporting oral or documentary evidence. RW1 has not produced any spot sketch to prove his case. On the other hand, the documentary evidence such as FIR, spot Mahazar and the charge sheet clearly supports the oral evidence of PW1 that on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus, the accident has occurred resulting in the death of the deceased scooterist. Further, it is significant to note here itself that the driver of the BMTC bus is a professional driver. Being an expert in the field, he ought to have taken due care and caution, when the bullock cart was moving on the left side of the road and had he been little cautious, he could have avoided the accident. He being the rider of the heavy vehicle is supposed to take higher precaution while driving and also when the small vehicles and bullock cart are nearby. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly fixed the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, belonging to the appellant Corporation. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. Re-Point II]:After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the view that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.81,545/- per annum, at the rate of Rs.6,795/- per month, accepting Exs.P10 and P11, without looking into the statement attached to the said prescribed form, showing the other permissible deductions. The income assessed is on the higher side. Except producing Exhibits P10 and P11, no other documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased is produced. The income assessed is on the higher side. Except producing Exhibits P10 and P11, no other documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased is produced. Further, if the deceased was a businessman in automobiles, the claimants ought to have produced the sales tax Certificate issued by the Central/State Commercial Tax Department. But, nothing of that sort is forthcoming in the original records placed before me. Therefore, in absence of credible documentary evidence, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, I re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. The dependents are wife and one minor son. Therefore, 1/3 rd is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. 2000/-) is deducted from Rs.6,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 42 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘14’ as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court SarlaVerma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.6,72,000/- (i.e. 4,000/- × 12 ×’14’) as against Rs.7,61,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 9. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of only 40,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), I award a sum of 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against 40,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 10. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.7,17,000/- as against 8,01,000/-awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs.84,000/-. 11. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above, the appeal filed by appellant/Corporation is allowed in part; The impugned judgment and award dated 19th September 2007, passed in MVC No.8006/2006, by the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH – 17), is hereby modified, reducing the compensation by a sum of Rs.84,000/-. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The apportionment and the manner of disbursement and the manner of disbursement ordered by Tribunal shall get reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court. The amount, if any, in deposit by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw the award, accordingly.