Judgment : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Questioning the award, dated 21.05.2004, passed in O.P.No.1428 of 2001 on the file of the III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal (for short, “the Tribunal”), the 3rd respondent therein i.e., National Insurance Company Limited, Warangal, represented by its Branch Manager, filed the present appeal. The said O.P. was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The facts, which led to filing of the present appeal, are as follows: On 14.08.2000, at about 9.00 p.m. while the deceased was returning from Warangal to his village Rajupally on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 C 4722 along with Pambidi Sampath Rao, a lorry bearing No. ATS 8649 came in an opposite direction from Mallampally to Warangal side driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed dashed against the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and succumbed to injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of incident, that he was an agriculturist-cum-motor mechanic in the said village earning Rs.5,000/-per month. The deceased died leaving respondents 1 to 3, who are his parents and brother. The respondent filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident took place, the age of the deceased and also the income of the deceased. It is further stated that there is no evidence to prove that driver of the lorry was having a valid license. After conducting the rival pleadings, the Tribunal below framed three issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 14.8.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No. ATS 8649 driven by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? In order to prove that the accident occurred on 14.08.2000 and that the driver of the said lorry drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner, the claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The appellant-National Insurance Company got marked Ex.B1 – Policy copy and tried to establish that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the said lorry and that the said vehicle was never driven in rash and negligent manner. The appellant-National Insurance Company got marked Ex.B1 – Policy copy and tried to establish that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the said lorry and that the said vehicle was never driven in rash and negligent manner. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-as compensation to the claimants. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents. PW.2 is an eyewitness to the incident. According to him, he was driving his motorcycle and was at a distance of 50 to 60 yards behind the vehicle of the deceased. His version is clear and consistent with regard to the manner in which the incident took place. He categorically stated that the driver of the lorry drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the deceased. He further mentioned that the lorry came from opposite side in a wrong direction and dashed the vehicle of the deceased. Immediately after the incident a report was lodged which was registered on Crime No. 152 of 2000 of Atmakur Police Station. Ex. A1 is the FIR. The police conducted inquest over the dead body and the same is brought on record as Ex. A2. Ex.A3 is the postmortem report and Ex. A5 is the charge sheet. Though PW.2 was cross-examined, nothing useful is elicited to discard his testimony. PW.1, the father of the deceased, who spoke about the age of his son and also the information, which he has received with regard to the manner in which the incident took place. Though he is not an eyewitness to the incident, his evidence corroborates the evidence of PW.2 in some material aspects. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 coupled with Ex. A1 to A5 establish the fact of the accident taking place on 14.8.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimants are not entitled for any claim and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. It is contended that no evidence has been produced to show that the deceased was doing agricultural work or mechanical work and submits that there is no proof to show that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. It is contended that no evidence has been produced to show that the deceased was doing agricultural work or mechanical work and submits that there is no proof to show that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that PW.1, the father of the deceased, was not cross-examined either with regard to the age of the deceased or with regard to the age of the parents of the deceased. The age of the parents i.e., respondent No.1 – father and respondent No.2 – mother was shown as 40 and 38 years respectively. When such is the position, it cannot be said that the age of the deceased was 32 years on the date of the incident. The statement of PW.1 that the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of incident appears to be correct. Mentioning of age in the postmortem report, as 32 cannot be taken as correct version. After the incident, the deceased was taken to the hospital and somebody accompanying him must have mentioned his age as 32. That by itself does not mean that the age of the deceased has to be taken as 32. The question that arises for consideration is the amount of compensation, which the claimants are entitled to. The claim of the legal representatives of the deceased was that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-per month by cultivating their lands and also ding the work of motor mechanic. Ex.A7 – copy of the pahani shows that the family of the deceased was cultivating more than Ac.8.00 of land. PW-1 also deposed that the deceased was an agriculturist and also a motor mechanic earning Rs. 4,000/-per month. The Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 22 years, able bodied person doing agriculture work could easily earn Rs. 3,000/-per month. By taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-per month, the Tribunal though awarded total compensation to an extent of Rs. 3,85,908/-, restricted the claim to Rs. 3,50,000/. The said compensation awarded is inclusive of Rs. 500/-towards damages to clothing, Rs.2,500/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,908/-towards damages to motor cycle and Rs.20,000/-towards shock and mental agony, loss of love and affection. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier 15 for the purpose of calculating compensation. 3,50,000/. The said compensation awarded is inclusive of Rs. 500/-towards damages to clothing, Rs.2,500/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,908/-towards damages to motor cycle and Rs.20,000/-towards shock and mental agony, loss of love and affection. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier 15 for the purpose of calculating compensation. She further contends that since the deceased was unmarried, his personal and living expenses should be taken as 50% and his contribution to the family will be 50% of his income. In view of ratio laid down in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ((2009) 6 SCC 121) the deduction of 1/3 made by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased appears to be incorrect. The deceased being unmarried, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as a dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as tow-third.” As the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/-per month and after deducting 50% of the amount towards personal and living expenses, the contribution made by the deceased to the family would be Rs. 1500/-per month. In view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the compensation. It is evident that the mother of the deceased was aged about 38 years and applying multiplier 15 the amount of compensation towards loss of earnings, which the claimants would be entitled to will be Rs. 2,70,000/-The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 500/-towards clothing Rs. 2,500/-towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,908 towards damages to motor cycle. The amount awarded under the above counts appear to be reasonable which warrant no interference. Though an amount of Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 25,000/-are claimed under the heads pain and suffering and loss of affection, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 20,000/-towards pain and suffering and loss of affection put together. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the deceased was the only son and only earning member in the family. He was aged about 22 years, living along with his parents. Therefore, a different methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in RESHMA KUMARI VS. MADAN MOHAN reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422 = 2009 AIR SCW 6999. The relevant portion reads as under: “The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. MADAN MOHAN reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422 = 2009 AIR SCW 6999. The relevant portion reads as under: “The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. ” While observing that the death of the only son to a mother can never be compensated in monetary terms, the Court further observed that some sort of hypotheses or guesswork is inevitable while awarding compensation. In India several factors have to be taken into consideration while considering the compensation amount viz., depending upon the conditions prevailing in the family and the status of the family and the responsibilities, which the deceased have to undertake had he been alive. In R.K. MALIK V. KIRAN PAL ( (2009) 14 SCC 1 ), the Supreme Court while dealing with the case involving claim of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, made the following observations: “In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to put the dependants/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same potion if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. To put it simply-pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognizes that payment should also be made for non-pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life, etc. The Act provides for payment of “just compensation” vide Sections 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be “just compensation” in the facts of a case. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. The Act provides for payment of “just compensation” vide Sections 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be “just compensation” in the facts of a case. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely.” Keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court that loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely and also taking into consideration that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, this Court feels that further amount of Rs. 20,000/-can be awarded towards loss of happiness and love and affection of the son which would be just compensation. Thus the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants stands reduced from Rs. 3,50,000/-to Rs. 3, 15, 908/-rounded off to Rs. 3,16,000/-. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part, while maintaining the interest granted by the Tribunal @t 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.