JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. By this appeal, filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., which was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the claim case, challenged the judgment and award dated 31.01.2002, passed by the learned Single Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in case No. TS(MAC) 08 of 2001. Fact of the case, in short is that the deceased Pradip Debnath along with his younger brother Pratap Debnath (PW 2) had been working at Shilong, State of Meghalaya and on 18.12.2000 at about 8-00 p.m. intending to visit their house at Dharmanagar they were waiting at Dhankheti Bus stand for availing a Night- super Bus to meet the journey. At that time, a Night-super Bus bearing No. AS-25-B-5012 reached the Bus stop and both the brothers boarded the bus on the assurance made by the conductor/assistant that there were vacant seats in the bus. After boarding the bus, they found all seats were occupied by the passengers and they requested the conductor to stop the bus so that they may get down since they will not be able to perform such long journey as standing passengers. The vehicle was stopped at a little away and Pratap Debnath got down but while deceased Pradip was getting down driver suddenly started the bus and Pradip was ran over. He received severe injury and with the help of local people he was taken to Shilong Civil Hospital where he was declared dead. A Police case, Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 4(1)2001 under Sections 279/304(A), IPC was registered on the basis of FIR and police investigation was taken up. The deceased was a bachelor, aged about 24 years having his date of birth 01.01.1977 and he was a driver by profession and was also engaged in the transport business at Shilong. His monthly income was Rs.3,500/-. 2. The petitioners being the parents of the deceased filed the claim case praying for compensation of Rs.11,04,000/- in all. They stated that out of the monthly income of the deceased he used to contribute Rs.2000/- per month for the parents and other members of the family. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle No. AS-25-B-5012 on receipt of the notice did not appear before the tribunal and so, the tribunal decided the case ex parte against them. 4. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle No. AS-25-B-5012 on receipt of the notice did not appear before the tribunal and so, the tribunal decided the case ex parte against them. 4. Respondent No. 3, the National Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein, contested the case by filing written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that the accident occurred for the fault of the deceased and therefore, the claimant petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation. The insurance company, however, did not deny the factum of insurance of the vehicle covering the risk on the date of accident. 5. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed following issues:-- A. Whether Pradip Debnath died on 18.12.2000 on account of a vehicular accident at Dhankheti over the National High Way for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing the No. As-25-B-5012 by its driver? B. Who will pay the compensation? C. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief and if so up to what extent? 6. In support of their case, claimant-respondent No. 1, the father of the deceased, examined himself as PW 1 and also examined Pratap Debnath, the younger brother of the deceased who is an eye witness of the accident as PW 2 and another neighbor of the deceased who came to the bus stand to see off them namely Lalmohan Roy as PW 3. 7. Respondents adduced no oral or documentary evidence. 8. Considering the evidence and materials on record, the tribunal taking into account the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- and further taking into account the age of the deceased as 24 years at the time of accident and therefore, applying the multiplier of 17 calculated an amount of Rs.6,12,000/- and deducted 1/3rd from the same towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling Rs.4,10,000/- and directed the insurance company to make payment of the compensation. 9. The appellant, insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, filed the present appeal on different grounds. 10. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Gautam for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. Basudeb Chakraborty for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. 9. The appellant, insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, filed the present appeal on different grounds. 10. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Gautam for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. Basudeb Chakraborty for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Gautam appearing for the appellant insurance company assailed the judgment and award passed by the tribunal on the grounds that-- I. The deceased was a bachelor, aged about 24 years. Claimants are the parents of the deceased, aged about 60 years (as stated by PW 1) at the time of accident. So, while determining the multiplier the tribunal would take into consideration the age of the parents and arrived at a decision that a multiplier of 9 shall apply. Whereas, the tribunal wrongly taking into consideration the age of the deceased, applied a multiplier of 17 for determining compensation and thereby committed mistake. II. The tribunal wrongly arrived at a finding that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.3000/- though there is no documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased. While determining compensation, the tribunal deducted only 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased but according to law the tribunal would deduct 50% of the income of the deceased while determining the compensation. Thereby the tribunal committed a great error and hence, the judgment and award is liable to be interfered. III. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased but according to law only mother is entitled to maintain a petition seeking compensation and that since father is not entitled to any compensation, the tribunal would reject the petition at the thresh hold. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty refuting the argument of learned counsel, Mr. Gautam, has submitted that the petitioners are the old and ailing parents of the deceased and were dependent on the income of the deceased. There is no rule that in such cases the age of the parents should be taken into consideration for determining multiplier to ascertain the compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a recent case law of Amrit Bhanu Shall & ORs.v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SCW 3901 and the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Gopali & Ors., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4330. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a recent case law of Amrit Bhanu Shall & ORs.v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SCW 3901 and the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Gopali & Ors., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4330. He has further contended that there is also no strict formula that 50% should be deducted towards personal and living expenses if the deceased is a bachelor, as a rule of thumb and in appropriate cases deduction may be less than 50% to secure ends of justice. He has also contended that at the old age, father is also entitled to be maintained by the earning son and there is no rule that the father should be always excluded from getting compensation for the death of his earning son. Learned counsel, concluded that the tribunal determined compensation at a lesser side and there is no reason to interfere in it. He further contended that the tribunal did not award any compensation towards pain and sufferings which the petitioners being parents have suffered for the death of their young earning son but since the petitioners did not challenge the award, they are not claiming any amount on that account. He finally prayed for dismissal of the appeal with cost. 13. It is fairly established that Pradip Debnath, son of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, died due to motor vehicle accident and so, the claimants being the parents are entitled to get compensation. Petitioner No. 1, being the father of the deceased and aged about 60 years, since was dependent on the income of the deceased is also entitled to get compensation. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 did not altogether exclude the entitlement of the father in claiming compensation. The Court held- father, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the case at hand, both the father and mother jointly filed the claim petition and petitioner No. 1, the father examined himself as PW 1 before the tribunal and in his deposition he prayed for granting him and his wife the compensation of Rs.11,04,000/-. In the case at hand, both the father and mother jointly filed the claim petition and petitioner No. 1, the father examined himself as PW 1 before the tribunal and in his deposition he prayed for granting him and his wife the compensation of Rs.11,04,000/-. While the father was aged about 60 years and there is no evidence on record to show that he has any independent income to maintain himself, his claim of compensation for the death of his young son cannot be thrown overboard. 14. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident having his date of birth 01.01.1977. The petitioners placed on record the postmortem report of the deceased, school certificate, driving licence and a certificate of agency issued by Meghalaya Omnibus Association. School certificate clearly reflects his date of birth as 01.01.1977. The tribunal, as it appears, following the table prescribed in the 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 applied the multiplier of 17 for the age group of 20 to 25 years. There has been a lot of change in determining the multiplier by Apex Court judgments and according to the latest position, a multiplier of 18 is applicable for the age group of victims between 21 to 25 years. In the case of Amrit Bhanu Shall (supra), in a case filed by the parents, for the death of their bachelor young son, aged about 26 years, the Supreme Court considered that a multiplier of 17 was rightly applied. In para 18 of the judgment, the Court held thus:-- 18. In the instant case of Sarla Verma, AIR 2009 SC 3104 : 2009 AIR SCW 4992 this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the multiplier of 13. 15. The same principle followed in the case of Gopali and others (supra). The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the multiplier of 13. 15. The same principle followed in the case of Gopali and others (supra). In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra), the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Gautam in respect of the multiplier applied by the tribunal, cannot be accepted. Simultaneously since the judgment and award passed by the tribunal has not been challenged by the petitioners, I find no reason to disturb the finding of the tribunal in respect of multiplier. 16. Regarding the deduction towards personal and living expenses, learned counsel, Mr. Gautam referred to the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and has submitted that 50% should be deducted from the income of the deceased since the deceased was a bachelor. In Sarla Verma (supra) the Apex Court in para 30, 31 and 32 has held thus:-- 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. 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 lo the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. 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 lo 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 dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. 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 dependent 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 two-third. 17. In the case at hand, tribunal deducted 1/3rd from the amount calculated towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. There is no iota of evidence that except the petitioners any other members of the family were dependent on the income of the deceased. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Apex Court has held that where the family of the deceased consist of widowed mother and large number of younger non earning brothers and sisters, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to the family will be taken as 2/3rd. Same principle has been adopted in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra). 18. In the case at hand, there is no evidence that any other members of the family were dependent on the income of the deceased and so, deduction of 1/3rd as directed by the tribunal was not justified. The tribunal would deduct 50% from the amount calculated to determine just compensation. Learned counsel, Mr. 18. In the case at hand, there is no evidence that any other members of the family were dependent on the income of the deceased and so, deduction of 1/3rd as directed by the tribunal was not justified. The tribunal would deduct 50% from the amount calculated to determine just compensation. Learned counsel, Mr. Gautam though has submitted that there is no documentary evidence regarding income, I cannot accept the submission since there is oral evidence and it is on record that the deceased was a driver by profession and in the absence of any documentary evidence about income, the tribunal committed no wrong in arriving at a decision applying guess work that deceased might have an income of about Rs.3000/- per month and I find no unreasonableness in such finding of the tribunal. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the compensation is re-calculated thus:- Rs.3000 12 17 = Rs.6,12,000/-. If 50% is excluded the amount stands at Rs.3,06,000/-. As I find the tribunal did not award any compensation towards pain and sufferings to the parents for the death of their young son. The claimant respondents did not challenge the judgment/award passed by the tribunal for nonpayment of compensation for pain and suffering. Since there is no appeal by the claimants, no award can be made on that score. The tribunal awarded further amount of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and that amount is added. Thus total amount of compensation stands at Rs.3,08,000/-. The appellant insurance company is liable to make payment of the amount Rs.3,08,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eight thousand) with 9% interest thereon from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 27.02.2001. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and disposed of. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal Partly Allowed.