JUDGMENT : K.S. MUDAGAL, J. 1. Since, these two appeals arise out of the same accident, they are taken up together for disposal. The appellant in these two cases is respondent no.2, respondents 1 and 2 in MFA No.3361/2017 are the claimants in MVC No.5525/2015 and respondents 1 to 3 in MFA No.3362/2017 are the claimants in MVC No.1206/2016. Respondent no.3 in MFA No.3361 and respondent no.4 in MFA No.3362/2017 is the first respondent before the Tribunal in both the cases. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the Tribunal. 2. On 19.11.2015 when one Dhruv Sharma and Ram Ashwin were traveling in the car bearing Regn. No. RJ- 19/CD-2363 driven by their friend Krishnan. At 5.15 AM near Simony Apartment the car hit against the road side tree and Dhruv Sharma and Ram Ashwin died. 3. The parents and sister of Dhruv Sharma filed MVC 1206/2016 and the parents of Ram Ashwin filed MVC 5525/2015 before MACT & SCCH-1, Bangalore contending that the accident and the consequential deaths occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor car by Krishnan. It was contended that Ram Ashwin was a B.Tech student and Dhruv Sharma was a BBM Student in Alliance University, Bangalore and they had bright future. It was contended that due to untimely death of those two, the claimants have suffered. The claimants in each of the cases claimed compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. 4. The second respondent alone filed the statement of objections and contested the matter. The second respondent denied the accident, age and occupation of the deceased, the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The second respondent contended that the driver of the car was not holding an effective driving licence and he was guilty of drunken driving. Therefore, it was contended that there is breach of policy condition and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The parties adduced evidence in both the cases. After hearing the parties, by the impugned awards the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.17,32,500/- to the claimants in MVC No.5525/2015 and Rs.15,68,000/- to the claimants in MVC No.1206/2016 with interest @ 9% p.a. The said awards are challenged in the above appeals assailing the quantum of compensation. 6. 5. The parties adduced evidence in both the cases. After hearing the parties, by the impugned awards the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.17,32,500/- to the claimants in MVC No.5525/2015 and Rs.15,68,000/- to the claimants in MVC No.1206/2016 with interest @ 9% p.a. The said awards are challenged in the above appeals assailing the quantum of compensation. 6. Sri.C.M.Poonacha, learned counsel for the second respondent in both the cases in his argument seeks to assail the awards on the following grounds: (i) The computation of the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- is on the higher side; (ii) Awarding of future prospects @ 50% in both the cases is erroneous; (iii) There is error in applying the multiplier. Thus, in both the cases the challenge is only on the quantum of compensation. 7. Reg: Income, Future Prospects and Multiplier applicable: As per the quarterly journal for the quarter March- June 2015 issued by the Labour Department of Karnataka Government, notifying the minimum wages for the said period, the minimum wage comes to around Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- based on the Judgment of the Apex Court in ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI vs RAMKARAN RAMCHANDRA SHARMA AND ANOTHER ( 2014 ACJ 2648 ). 8. As per the Apex Court Judgment in SARALA VERMA & Ors. Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. (2009)6 SCC 121 and Judgment of the Apex Court in RAJESH & ORS. Vs RAJBIR SINGH & ORS. (2013)9 SCC 54 , the multiplier applicable to the age group of 15-25 is 18 and 50% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased is below 40 years of age. It is further held in the said judgments that in case of bachelors, half of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. 9. The Apex Court in MUNNALAL JAIN & ANR. Vs VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. (2015 AIR SCW 3105) has held that computation of multiplier depends upon the age of the deceased alone. 10. Reg: the quantum of compensation in MFA 3361/2017: There is no dispute that as per Ex.P.8 - the 12th standard marks card and Ex.P.9 - copy of Adhar card of the deceased Ram Ashwin, his date of birth is 06.01.1997. Therefore, at the time of his death in the accident he was 18 years old. 10. Reg: the quantum of compensation in MFA 3361/2017: There is no dispute that as per Ex.P.8 - the 12th standard marks card and Ex.P.9 - copy of Adhar card of the deceased Ram Ashwin, his date of birth is 06.01.1997. Therefore, at the time of his death in the accident he was 18 years old. His admission records showed that he was first year B.Tech student. 11. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Ram Ashwin at Rs.9000/- per month and added future prospects at 50% and deducted one half for his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18. At that rate, it arrived at the loss of dependency as follows: Monthly income 9000+4500-6750x12x18 = 14,58,000/- 12. In addition to the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. Since, the claimants produced records regarding payment of college fee of Rs.1,64,500/- for admission of the deceased in B.Tech course, the Tribunal has taken into account the same while granting the compensation. No amount is awarded towards transportation of the dead body. The Tribunal, in all awarded compensation of Rs.17,32,500/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the claimants in MFA No.3361/2017 arising out of MVC No.5525/2015 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 13. Reg: the quantum of compensation in MFA 3362/2017: It is not disputed that as per Ex.P.3 - copy of the aadhar card of the deceased Dhruv Sharma, he was 1996 born. Therefore, at the time of his death he was 20 years old. His college identity card showed that he was studying BBM course in Alliance University. 14. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Dhruv Sharma at Rs.9000/- per month and added future prospects at 50% and deducted one half for his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 18. At that rate, it arrived at the loss of dependency as follows: Monthly income 9000+4500-6750x12x18 = Rs.14,58,000/- 15. In addition to the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. No amount is awarded towards transportation of the dead body. The Tribunal, in all awarded Rs.15,68,000/- to the claimants. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the claimants in MFA No.3362/2017 arising out of MVC No.1206/2016 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. No amount is awarded towards transportation of the dead body. The Tribunal, in all awarded Rs.15,68,000/- to the claimants. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the claimants in MFA No.3362/2017 arising out of MVC No.1206/2016 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. 16. The above facts and circumstances go to show that the Tribunal assessed the income, awarded the future prospects and applied the multiplier in the above cases based on the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra. There is no merit in the contention that the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the monthly income, granting 50% future prospects and applying 18 multiplier to the cases. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned awards. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed with costs. The statutory deposit made, if any, in the above cases, before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. In view of the disposal of the appeals, I.A.1/2017 in both the cases for interim stay do not survive. Disposed of accordingly.