JUDGMENT : Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, the same is heard for final disposal. This appeal is by the insurer, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 29.12.2009 passed in MVC. No.1216/2008 on the file of the Member, MACT, Belgaum, passed in a claim petition filed U/S. 163A of the M.V. Act. 2. Briefly stated, the claim petition was filed by the mother of the deceased Raghavendra, contending that on 13.02.2008 at about 1240 p.m, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing No.CTS.9498 on Hilkal dam Hatageri road near Sultanpur cross with h-is mother-claimant herein as pillion rider the offending bus No.KA25/F2419 of NWKRTC., came from opposite side driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, they fell down and suffered fatal injuries and the rider of motorcycle succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, he was earning Rs.3,500/-per month. Hence, she filed a claim petition. 3. The claim petition was contested by the insurer. The Tribunal, on over all assessment of the material on record capitalized the compensation payable at Rs.3,56,676/. 4. Smt. Shashikala L. Deasi, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, assailing the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal submits that the deceased being an unmarried, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of his earning while computing the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependency’, but erroneously deducted 1/3 of the income and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/twice under the same head. Hence, she prays for modify the Judgment and award of the Tribunal, by reducing the compensation amount. 5. In reply, Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submits that though the deceased was an unmarried, he was having the responsibility to maintain the large family and therefore, and keeping mind the note to the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased to assess the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependency’. That the mother of the deceased was aged 45 years and the suitable multiplier applicable was 14 but the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 13 to workout the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependency’ and that has substantially reduced the compensation amount and in toto, there was no loss to the insurer and hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In the light of the above rival submissions, it emerges that apparently, the Tribunal has committed error in choosing the multiplier 13 instead 14, while computing the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependency’. The mother, since aged 45 years, as per the verdict of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma, the appropriate multiplier is 14. The contention that Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from out of the income of the deceased is concerned, the same cannot be sustained, in view of the note appended to the ScheduleII which reads thus: “The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive”. In that view of the matter, the appellant-insurer has not suffered any monitory loss from the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as, the same is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant-Insurer is directed to deposit the amount including the accrued interest amount payable to the claimant-respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order before the jurisdictional Civil Judge. Office is directed to transmit the statutory amount, if any deposited before this Court including the records to the jurisdictional Civil Court forthwith.