Judgment : 1. M/s Oriental Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.39/2011 dated 6.8.2011 on the file of the FTC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arkalagud, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.10,88,400/- in favour of the claimant/respondent Nos.1 and 2 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of one C.Chandru. They filed the above claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15.12.2010. According to them, C.Chandru was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-20 H-3952 on 15.12.2010 at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. on Holnarasipura - Arakalagud road. While he came near the Degree College at Honnenahalli village, the offending bus belonging to the fourth respondent-Corporation came from the opposite direction and dashed against the said bike. In the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a Driver in BMTC at Bangalore and earning more than Rs.8,000/-per month. In all, they claimed Rs.15 lakhs towards compensation. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed its objections opposing the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident dated 15.12.2010 between 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. on Holenarasipura-Arakalgud road near the land of Chikka Rajanna and Degree college situated at Honnavalli village, has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus No.KA.13 F-1647 and the deceased C.Chandru who was proceeding on the left side of the road on his bike bearing No.KA.20 H.3952 has died in the said Road Traffic Accidental injuries? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, from whom and for what amount?" 4. The first claimant was examined as P.W1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked in his evidence. The driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W1. The insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending bus belonging to the Corporation has caused the accident. The first claimant was examined as P.W1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked in his evidence. The driver of the offending bus was examined as R.W1. The insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending bus belonging to the Corporation has caused the accident. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the claimants that the deceased was working as BMTC bus driver and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.10,38,400/- towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs.50,000/-towards compensation under other conventional heads. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant insurer is that the Tribunal is not right in holding that the driver of the offending bus alone is responsible for the accident. The driver of the offending bus was driving the bus slowly. The deceased was riding the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. Thus, the deceased alone was responsible for the accident. Therefore, fastening the liability on the appellant has to be set aside. 6. Alternatively, it is contended that the award of compensation is excessive. The Tribunal is not justified in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Even if 50% of the income is added towards future prospectus, after deducing Rs.200/-towards profession tax and after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses and taking the age of the mother as 52 and multiplier 11, the claimants are at best entitled for Rs.7,78,800/- towards loss of dependency. The award of compensation under other conventional heads is also on a higher side. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 8. As noticed above, the father of the deceased was claimant No.1. He was examined as P.W1. In his evidence, he has stated that the reason for the accident is rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Documents have been marked in support of his contention at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. It is to be noticed here that a complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending bus. After investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. Documents have been marked in support of his contention at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. It is to be noticed here that a complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending bus. After investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the driver of the offending bus alone is responsible for the accident. I do not find any error in the said finding. 9. It is clear from the materials on record that the deceased was working as a driver of BMTC bus at Bangalore, which is evident from the pass book at Ex.P7. It cannot be disputed that during relevant point of time, a driver in a BMTC would get a minimum salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. Though the claimants have not produced any materials to suggest his monthly income, the Tribunal has rightly taken his income at Rs.8,000/-per month. He was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was permanently employed with the BMTC. Therefore, 50% of the salary has to be added towards future prospectus. Thus, the total income, which has to be taken into consideration for the computation of loss of dependency is Rs.12,000/-, out of which Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards profession tax. He was a bachelor. 50% of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. His mother was aged 52 years. The multiplier applicable to the case is 11. By taking his income at Rs.5,900/- per month with the application of multiplier 11 (Rs.5900 x 12 x 11), the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,78,800/-. A sum of Rs.25,000/-is awarded towards compensation under other conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.8,03,800/-as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.10,88,400/-. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. I hold that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,03,800/-. The Tribunal is directed to deposited Rs.3,00,000/-each in the name of the claimants in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years in a Nationalised Bank of their choice. They are entitled to receive the remaining amount in equal proportion. I hold that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,03,800/-. The Tribunal is directed to deposited Rs.3,00,000/-each in the name of the claimants in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years in a Nationalised Bank of their choice. They are entitled to receive the remaining amount in equal proportion. They are also permitted to withdraw half yearly interest . The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs.