JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. Appellants are the claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 28th January, 2011 passed in MVC No. 210/2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara (for short 'Tribunal') and also fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant, they have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellants are the parents and sister of deceased Abhishek C U. They filed a claim petition contending that on 21.4.2007, when the deceased Abhishek C U was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-04/W-3553 as a pillion rider, near Hunase-marada Bande Cross, a lorry bearing Registration No. AP-02/U-6122 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. Due to that the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently Abhishek C U died during the course of treatment. In the claim petition, it was contended that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 19 years. He was working as an agriculturist and also doing sericulture as well as dairy farm. He was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month. In view of death of the deceased, the family has lost one of the earning members. Due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, both respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the claimants and sought for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company defended the case by filing written statement contending that due to negligence on the part of rider of motor-cycle, the accident occurred. Further the driver of the offending lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license. The charge sheet was filed against the driver of the said lorry. Hence, the Insurance Company contended that it is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the Insurance Company. 4. Though the owner of the offending lorry was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. 5. In order to prove the case, the 2nd claimant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of respondents, none of the witnesses were examined nor has any document been marked. 6. 4. Though the owner of the offending lorry was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. 5. In order to prove the case, the 2nd claimant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of respondents, none of the witnesses were examined nor has any document been marked. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot mahazar, copy of the complaint and charge-sheet held that due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the lorry, the accident occurred and the deceased Abhishek C U sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased and are entitled for compensation. 7. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, applying the multiplier 15 and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- towards 'loss of dependency and Rs. 30,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded by the Tribunal. 8. With regard to liability is concerned, though the Insurance Company has taken a contention that the driver of the offending lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving license, they have not stepped into the witness box to prove the same. The Tribunal taking into consideration the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending lorry held that the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving license and fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimants. The claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimants have preferred this appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri. K Shantharaj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri. H. S. Lingaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent, perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence. 10. The dispute in this appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. 11. K Shantharaj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri. H. S. Lingaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent, perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence. 10. The dispute in this appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. 11. Though the Insurance Company has taken a specific contention that the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, the Insurance Company has not stepped into the witness box to prove their defence taken in the written by leading evidence. No document was produced to substantiate the same. The Tribunal without looking into the documents produced before the Criminal Court and came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving license. Hence, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to law. 12. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal as Rs. 3,000/- is on the lower side. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 19 years. He was working as an agriculturist as well as doing dairy farm. Though the claimants have not produced any documents to substantiate the income, the Tribunal ought to have taken reasonable amount while awarding the compensation. Further, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in (2012) 11 SCC 738 : (2012 AIR SCW 3901) in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and (2015) 6 SCC 347 : (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1130) in the case of Munnalal Jain and Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased while applying the multiplier. Hence, I am of the opinion that taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month, deducting 50% towards personal expenses since he was a bachelor, as he was aged about 19 years at the time of accident, applying the multiplier 18, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- towards 'loss of dependency- . Further, the claimants have lost their only son in the road traffic accident and also lost his love and affection. Hence, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- towards 'loss of dependency- . Further, the claimants have lost their only son in the road traffic accident and also lost his love and affection. Hence, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,02,000/- as against Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Insofar as the liability is concerned, the Insurance Company has to compensate the claimants. Though the defence has been taken in the written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving license, it has not been proved in accordance with law. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimants. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (I) Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 28th January, 2011 passed in MVC No. 210/2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara, is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,02,000/- as be against Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Insofar as the liability is concerned, the Insurance Company shall liable to compensate the claimants.