Judgment : 1. This appeal by the appellant- Corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2011 passed in MVC No.3227/2010 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, and MACT, Bengaluru City (SCCH.10), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs.23,94,154/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its payment as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Laxmanachar Joshi, in the road traffic accident is on higher side and disproportionate to the income of the deceased and is liable to be reduced. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are: The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Sri. Laxmanachar Joshi. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, contending that, on 01.4.2010 at about 11.45 a.m. the deceased was standing in the KSRTC bus stand to go to his BSNL Office, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA.40.F.206 came in a rash and negligent manner from Sidlaghatta side and then run over the leg of the deceased and caused the accident. Immediately, he was shifted in an ambulance to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore and later he succumbed to injuries. 3. It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 59 years and hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was a retired Junior Warrant Officer, IAF New Delhi and working as a Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL Devanahalli and drawing the salary of Rs.36,540/- per month and also drawing defence pension of Rs.6,733/-per month, totally, he was drawing the salary of Rs.43,273/-per month. He was the only earning member of the family and contributing the same for the welfare and maintenance of his family. Due to his untimely death, claimants have suffered mental shock and agony and lost happiness in life. 4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. He was the only earning member of the family and contributing the same for the welfare and maintenance of his family. Due to his untimely death, claimants have suffered mental shock and agony and lost happiness in life. 4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, and by assigning valid reasons has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs.23,94,154/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its payment. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation has filed this appeal contending that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it requires to be reduced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal . 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and learned counsel appearing for claimants at considerable length of time. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, at the outset, submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in taking the net income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency since he was aged about 59 years and he was having the remaining service of six months only. If at all, if the Tribunal wanted to take, it ought to have taken 50% of Rs.28,353/- i.e. basic plus DA as per Ex.P16 and 50% of Rs.6,733/-which he was getting as pension from defence as his income and deducted 50% towards personal expenses as the wife is the only dependent since children are aged about 28 and 24 years respectively and are working and adopted the multiplier of 8. Further, he submits that, since deceased was having another six months service, a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-may be awarded. Therefore, he submitted that, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,62,816/- instead of Rs.23,84,154/- and hence the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 8. As against this learned counsel appearing for claimants, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. 8. As against this learned counsel appearing for claimants, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. However, he fairly submitted after going through the entire material available on record that, claimant No. 1 being the wife of the deceased will get 50% of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.14,178/- from BSNL and Rs.3,366/- from defence pension, in all, Rs.17,544/-as pension and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses from the same, loss of dependency may be awarded reasonably. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of consortium and love and affection. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 9. After careful consideration of the submission of learned counsel for both parties, after perusal of the materials available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, deceased was aged about 59 years 6 months and working as Junior Telecom Officer in BSNL and after his death, his wife will get 50% of his income as pension i.e. basic salary, DA. 11. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties, fairly submitted that the net income of the deceased may be taken after deducting 50% drawn by the wife as pension at Rs.17,544/-per month and we accept the same. Out of which, if 1 /3rd (Rs.5,848/-) is deducted towards his personal expenses, his net income comes to Rs.11,696/-per month. Since deceased was aged about 59 years, proper multiplier applicable is 8' as submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties and we accept the same. The total of which comes to Rs.11,22,816/-. To that, another sum of Rs.2,40,000/-should be added as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, towards the salary of the deceased for his remaining service of six months and therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,62,816/- instead of Rs.23,84,154/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 12. To that, another sum of Rs.2,40,000/-should be added as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, towards the salary of the deceased for his remaining service of six months and therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,62,816/- instead of Rs.23,84,154/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each, Rs.10,000/-each towards loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,62,816/- instead of Rs.23,94,154/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be a reduction of compensation of Rs.9,31,338/-. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated: 26.07.2011 passed in MVC No.3227/2010 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru City (SCCH.10), is hereby modified, by awarding compensation of Rs.14,62,816/- instead of Rs.23,94,154/-awarded by the Tribunal. There would be a reduction of compensation of Rs.9,31,338/-. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. The apportionment and manner of disbursement ordered by the Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction made by this Court. The amount deposited by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately. Office to draw the award, accordingly. In view of the disposal of main matter on merits, the relief sought by the appellant in IA No.II/2011, does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed of as having become infructuous.