JUDGMENT 1. Though these matters are posted for orders, the same are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appeals by the Corporation and the mother of deceased and Cross objection by the claimants are directed against the same judgment and award dated 30th June 2010, passed in MVC No.660/2009, by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM. Tumkur, (for short, 'Tribunal'). 3. While the Corporation has filed M.F.A. No.67 42/2013 seeking to reduce the compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the higher side and disproportionate to the income of the deceased, the mother of the deceased has filed M.F.A.No.3570/2013, seeking apportionment in the compensation awarded on the ground that she is class I legal heir and claimants/cross objectors have filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation of Rs.28,87,860/- awarded by Tribunal is inadequate. 4. The facts in brief are that, the claimants/cross objectors are the wife and two minor daughters of deceased and appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 is the mother of the deceased, also claiming to be a claimant and entitled for apportionment in the compensation on the ground that she is a class I legal heir. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, on the ill-fated day, at about 7:00 A.M, on 29-12-2008, when the deceased was proceeding to the College, Hirekerur-Madhihalli road, the driver of the KSRTC Bus, bearing Registration No.KA-25/F-I959 drove the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike in which the deceased was proceeding. The bus ran over the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injury on the spot. 5. it is the case of the cross objectors that, the deceased was aged about 38 years and working as Lecturer in Government P.U. College in Kusunoor, Haveri District, drawing salary of Rs.16,382/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the cross objector No.1 has lost the life partner at young age, cross objector Nos.2 and 3 have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 has lost the social, financial and moral security and therefore; they have to be compensated reasonably. 6. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the cross objector No.1 has lost the life partner at young age, cross objector Nos.2 and 3 have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 has lost the social, financial and moral security and therefore; they have to be compensated reasonably. 6. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants/cross objectors filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 30th June, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.28,87,860/- under different leads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation has filed appeal, seeking reduction of compensation and the claimants/cross objectors have filed the cross objection, seeking enhancement of compensation and the appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 has filed the said appear on the ground that the Tribunal grossly erred in not apportioning the compensation awarded by it in favour of the mother of the deceased and she is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the death of her son as she is class 1 legal heir. 7. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by Corporation, the appeal filed by mother of deceased and also the cross objections filed by the cross objectors and heard Shri. F.S. Dabali, learned counsel appearing for Corporation, Shri. N.K. Kantharaju, learned counsel appearing for mother of deceased and Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, learned counsel appearing for cross objectors, for considerable length of time. 8. Shri. F.S. Dabali, learned counsel appearing for Corporation at the outset submits that, the Tribunal committed an error and material irregularity in proceeding to award exorbitant compensation, without following due procedure as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and without following the well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decision. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by reducing the compensation considerably, on account of the death of the deceased Basavanagowda Kodamaggi in the road traffic accident. Further, he is quick to point out and submit that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 38 years, working as Lecturer in Government Pre-University College, drawing salary of Rs.16,382/- per month as per Ex.P4. The age stated by the claimants/cross objectors is incorrect and the correct age of the deceased is 41 years as per the SSLC marks card issued by the Karnataka State Secondary Education Examination Board, dated 18th June 1985, wherein the date of birth of deceased is shown as 12-10-1968 and the accident occurred on 29-12-2008. Therefore, he submitted that the age of the deceased may be re-assessed as 41 years instead of 38 assessed by Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice. Further, he vehemently submitted that, in the light of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), 30% towards future prospects may be added, re-assessing his age as 41 years instead of 50% added by Tribunal towards future prospects, considering his age as 38 years. Further, he submitted that the multiplier of 15' adopted by Tribunal based on the age of the deceased as 38 years is also liable to be modified, by adopting the multiplier of 14' re-assessing his age as 41 years, to meet the ends of justice. However, he submitted that the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and reasonable compensation be awarded towards conventional heads, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 9. Per contra, Shri. N.X. Kantharaj, learned counsel appearing for appellant/mother of the deceased in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 vehemently submitted that, the claimants/cross objectors being the wife and children of deceased have intentionally and deliberately not impleaded the mother as party to the claim petition filed by them before the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.660/2009, when in fact, she is the mother and class I legal heir of deceased and is entitled to just and reasonable compensation on account of the unnatural and untimely death of her deceased son, Basavanagowda Kodamaggi. She has undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and lost the love and affection of her son and she was also lost the financial security apart from social and moral support and therefore, she has to be awarded reasonable compensation for the death of her deceased son. 10. As against the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for Corporation and the mother of the deceased, Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, learned counsel appearing for cross objectors, inter alia, submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads for the reason that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), they are entitled to higher compensation than the one awarded by Tribunal, as the claimants are wife and two minor daughters and they have lost the love and affection, inspiration, guidance and support of their father apart from other support. 11. Regarding the appeal filed by the mother of the deceased, learned counsel appearing for claimants/cross objectors submitted the mother is living with two other major sons and they have agricultural land to take care of and in fact, they have not given any share to the wife and daughters of deceased till date and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/mother of deceased be dismissed as being devoid of merits. 12. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, including the original records placed before us, the points that arise for our consideration in the appeals and the cross objection is, I] Whether the Compensation awarded by Tribunal is liable to he reduced? II] Whether the mother of deceased is entitled to just and reasonable compensation on account of death of her deceased son? Re-Point I: After going through the entire material placed before us, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Basavanagowda Kodamaggi in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was working as Lecturer in Govt. Pre-University College, drawing salary of Rs.16,382/- per month, as per Ex.P4, Salary Certificate. Further, it can be seen that the claimants/cross objectors have stated that the deceased was aged about 38 years. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was working as Lecturer in Govt. Pre-University College, drawing salary of Rs.16,382/- per month, as per Ex.P4, Salary Certificate. Further, it can be seen that the claimants/cross objectors have stated that the deceased was aged about 38 years. The Tribunal, based on the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence, i.e. P.M. report, wherein it is stated that the deceased was aged about 38 years, has taken the age of the deceased as 38 years. The same is incorrect, for the reason that the learned counsel appearing for Corporation has filed I.A.No.2/2013 for additional documents, producing thereto a copy of the SSLC marks card of the deceased, wherein the date of birth of deceased is shown as 12- 10-1968 and the accident occurred on 29-12-2008. The same is accepted and I.A.No.2/2013 is allowed by a separate order and we re-assess the age of the deceased as 41 years to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, it can be seen that the Tribunal is not justified in adding 50% towards future prospects of the deceased on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and the same is liable to be set aside and instead of that, 30% towards future prospects has to be added in the light of the very same judgment. Accordingly, in the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing Corporation and the documentary evidence produced along -with the application, i.e. SSLC marks card issued by the Karnataka State Secondary Education Examination Board, we re-assess the age of +he deceased as 41 years and add 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as against 50% added by Tribunal. 13. Now, we have to assess the income of the deceased. As per Ex.P4, Salary Certificate, it can be seen that, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.16,382/- per month. The same is not disputed and we accept the said income of the deceased, to meet the ends of justice. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, 30% of the same is to be added to the total income of the deceased towards future prospects of the deceased. Accordingly, if 30% (i.e. Rs.4,915/-) is added to the aforesaid salary of the deceased, the total income comes to Rs.21,297/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, 30% of the same is to be added to the total income of the deceased towards future prospects of the deceased. Accordingly, if 30% (i.e. Rs.4,915/-) is added to the aforesaid salary of the deceased, the total income comes to Rs.21,297/- per month. Per annum, the income works out to Rs.2,55,564/-. Out of this, if we deduct a sum of Rs.12,756/- towards income tax and professional tax, the income comes to Rs.2,42,808/- per annum. Even though the claimants for the purpose of awarding compensation are wife, two minor children and mother of deceased, claimant No. 1/cross objector No.1, wife of deceased is not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency since she is also working as Teacher. Hence, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Corporation, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as per Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly deducted by Tribunal. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs.80,936/-) is deducted from it, the net income comes of Rs.1,61,872/-. Further, as the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of accident, as re-assessed by us, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 14', in view of the aforesaid judgment in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.22,66,208/- (i.e. Rs.1,61,872/- x 14') as against Rs.28,57,860/- awarded by Tribunal. 14. Further, the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. But, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs.23,66,208/- as against Rs.28,87,860/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs.5,21,652/-. Re-Point II: So far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant/mother of deceased in M.F.A.No.3570/2013, it can be seen that the counsel for the mother has also filed I.A.No.2/2013 seeking leave to prosecute the appeal seeking apportionment in the compensation awarded on account of the death of the deceased son, Basavanagowda Kodamaggi. The said application is allowed by a separate order. The said application is allowed by a separate order. The claimants/cross objectors have intentionally and deliberately not impleaded the mother of the deceased as party to the proceedings 111 M.V.C.No.660/2009. It is not in dispute that the appellant, Smt. Shankaramma @ Shankaravva aged about 71 years in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 is the mother of the deceased. She is a class I legal heir and is entitled to just and reasonable compensation on account of the untimely and unnatural death of her deceased son, Basavanagowda Kodamaggi in the road traffic accident. Further, it should not be forgotten that without the mother of the deceased there is no existence of the son. 15. After critical evaluation of the entire material available on file including the fact that the claimant No. 1/wife of the deceased is employed and not a dependent and there are two minor daughters to be taken care off, we hold that the mother of the deceased is entitled to 15% of total compensation i.e. a sum of Rs.3,54,930/- (i.e. 15% of Rs.23,66,208/-), excluding interest for the delayed period of 953 days in filing the appeal. 16. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by Corporation, the appeal filed by the mother of the deceased and the cross objection filed by the claimants/cross objectors are allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 30th June 2010, passed in MVC No.660/2009, by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM., Tumkur, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.23,66,208/- as against Rs.28,87,860/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs.5,21,652/-. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation with interest, after deducting the amount if any deposited by it, and without interest for a period of 953 days of delay caused in filing M.F.A.No.3570/2013 on a sum of Rs.3,54,930/-, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The apportionment of compensation ordered by Tribunal is also hereby modified; Out of Rs.3,54,930/- awarded in favour of the mother of deceased/appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 (without interest for 953 days of delay in filing the appeal), being 15% of total compensation, a sum of Rs. The apportionment of compensation ordered by Tribunal is also hereby modified; Out of Rs.3,54,930/- awarded in favour of the mother of deceased/appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 (without interest for 953 days of delay in filing the appeal), being 15% of total compensation, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the mother of deceased in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years and renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs.1,04,930/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant in M.F.A.No.3570/2013, on deposit by the Corporation. Out of the remaining 85% of total compensation, i.e. Rs.20,11,278/-, a sum of 3,9,00,000/- each ( Rs.9,00,000/- x 2 = Rs.18,00,000/-) with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of second and third claimants/cross objectors - children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, till they attain the age of 35 years, with liberty reserved to the mother, natural guardian, cross objector No.1 to withdraw the periodical interest for their welfare till they attain the age of 21 years and from 22 years to 35 years, they are entitled to withdraw their periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs.2,11,278/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimant No. 1/cross objector No. 1/wife of deceased, immediately. The statutory amount in deposit by the Corporation is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeals and cross objection, I.A.No.3/2013 for stay in M.F.A.No.6742/2013, and I.A.No.3/2013 for stay in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of claimants/wife and children of deceased in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 and Shri. F.S. Dabali is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of Corporation in M.F.A.No.3570/2013 and Cross Objection No. 181/2013, within four weeks from today.