JUDGMENT N.K. PATIL, J.-This appeal is by the claimants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 30.12.2010 passed in M.V.C. No. 42/2008, on the file of the Additional M.A.C.T., Kumta. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,413/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, after deducting the contributory negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased in the road traffic accident. On the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced and also contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased Shri Vinayak Ramachandra Dhareshwar in the road traffic accident is liable to be set aside, the appellants have presented this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case on hand are that, appellant No. 1 is the father and appellant No. 2 is the mother of the deceased late Shri Vinayak Ramachandra Dhareshwar. On account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 08:15 a.m. on 28.05.2008, the appellants herein being the parents of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest at 12% contending that he is the only bread earner of the family and out of four children, he is the only son and other three are daughters. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was prosecuting his final year B.Com and also working as a priest in the temple and also an L.I.C. agent and looking after agricultural operations. He was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month and he used to contribute the entire amount for the welfare of the family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the financial and economic conditions of the family is affected. The parents and sisters are deprived of his love and affection and also deprived to see his bright future. Therefore, they filed a claim petition against the RC owner cum driver and Insurers of the vehicles which were involved in the accident. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Therefore, they filed a claim petition against the RC owner cum driver and Insurers of the vehicles which were involved in the accident. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants, at the out set is that, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month and also committed error in taking the age of the mother between 60 to 65 years and it is specifically stated that the age of the mother was 48 years at the time of accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appropriate multiplier is applicable on the basis of the age of the deceased not the age of the younger parents. Further he submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court, the appropriate multiplier is to be applied according to the age of the deceased and not by taking the age of the mother. This Court would defer the views, it should be referred to the larger Bench for consideration. Further he submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the contributory negligence at 25% on the part of the rider of the motor cycle of the deceased and the same cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurers inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file. Further he submitted that it is crystal clear from the contents of Ex.P-3-spot panchanama and Ex.P-7- spot sketch. The rider of the motor cycle of the deceased came to the middle of the road crossing. The Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence at 50% each on the part of the rider of the motor cycle of the deceased and driver of the lorry. Further he submitted that the deceased is not the only son to the parents, there are other three daughters. It has come in the evidence of the claimant No. 1 that totally there are four children. Further he submitted that the deceased is not the only son to the parents, there are other three daughters. It has come in the evidence of the claimant No. 1 that totally there are four children. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the younger parents and applying the appropriate multiplier in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. He fairly submitted that there is no dispute in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, he submitted that interference by this Court is not called for. 5. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the points that arise for consideration are: "1. Whether the contributory negligence fastened on the deceased at 25% is sustainable in law? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" Re. Point No. 1: 6. After microscopic evaluation of the original records, placed before us, it emerges that as per Ex.P-1-F.I.R., Ex.P-2-the complaint, Ex.P-3-spot panchanama and Ex.P-7-spot sketch, and contents of spot panchanama, the width of the road is 25 feet and the spot of the accident is 13 feet from the western edge of the tar road. The lorry was proceeding in the south-north direction, the motor cycle was proceeding in the north-south direction. The accident occurred on the western side of the road divider. It proves beyond reasonable doubt that the driver of the lorry has crossed the road divider. Both the riders of two wheelers have come almost to the middle of the road. The motorcycle was on extreme side of the tar road. This accident could not have occurred. The accident occurred on the western side of the road divider. It proves beyond reasonable doubt that the driver of the lorry has crossed the road divider. Both the riders of two wheelers have come almost to the middle of the road. The motorcycle was on extreme side of the tar road. This accident could not have occurred. Therefore, there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle of the deceased and the driver of the lorry contributed to the major extent of the accident on the right side and forcing the lorry from the other side of the road divider and it is pertinent to note that it is crystal clear from the sketch of Ex.P-7-spot sketch, that the motor cycle has touched the middle of the road and the Tribunal is justified in fixing the contributory negligence. After careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, contributory negligence of 75% fixed on the rider of the lorry and 25% on the rider of the motorcycle of the deceased is just and proper. The reasoning given in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment is well founded and well reasoned. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Re. Point No. 2: 7. The undisputed facts of the case in hand are that the appellants-claimants are none other than the parents of the deceased. At the time of cross-examination, the 1st claimant-the father of the deceased has disclosed that they have got four children, the deceased and three daughters and it emerges that the deceased was aged about 21 years and he had passed B.Com final year. He was also a priest in the temple and an L.I.C. agent and also looking after agricultural operations. It shows that he used to spend the entire amount for the welfare of the family. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of the accident, we can safely assess the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month, instead of Rs. 5,000/-assessed by the Tribunal, if 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the remaining sum would be Rs. 3,000/-. Further it is pertinent to note that the age of the younger parent i.e., the mother was 48 years. The said fact cannot be disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3,000/-. Further it is pertinent to note that the age of the younger parent i.e., the mother was 48 years. The said fact cannot be disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is not in a position to substantiate that they have taken the ground that the age of the mother was between 60 and 65 years. After evaluation of the records, it emerges that she was aged about 48 years and even in the complaint the age of the father is shown as 58 years. We cannot disbelieve the statement made in the complaint, nor it is the case of respondents disputing the age of the mother. Therefore, we accept the age of mother as 48 years as on the date of the accident and apply the multiplier of 13 to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency to a sum of Rs. 4,68,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- × 12 × 13) accordingly awarded. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem fit to award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads i.e., loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses. The total entitlement comes to Rs. 5,13,000/-. 9. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,413/- towards medical expenses and ambulance bills. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Accordingly, appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 7,83,413/- out of which 25% should be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,95,853/-. After deduction, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 5,87,560/- as against Rs. 3,86,560/-. There will be enhancement of Rs. 2,01,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the date of petition till the date of realisation. 10. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants that the age of the deceased should be taken for applying appropriate multiplier is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that the age of the deceased is to be taken. In the instant case, the deceased is not the only son to the appellants. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that the age of the deceased is to be taken. In the instant case, the deceased is not the only son to the appellants. They have got four children and the father is not dependent upon the income of the deceased and only the mother is entitled towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants cannot be accepted nor the said judgment can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 30.12.2010 passed in M.V.C. No. 42/2008 on the file of the and Additional M.A.C.T., Kumta, is hereby modified awarding compensation of Rs. 2,01,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition fill the date of realisation. The respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation Rs. 2,01,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of appellant No. 2 in any nationalized bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for another 5 years and she is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically. Rs. 50,000/- only with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of appellant No. 2 in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years and renewable for another 5 years and they are entitled to withdraw their interest periodically. Remaining Rs. 51,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in equal proportion immediately on deposit by the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Draw the award accordingly. Shri M.K. Soudagar is permitted to file vakalath within a period of four weeks.