JUDGMENT : These two appeals are filed by the claimants as well as the insurance company challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 22-11-2013 made in MVC No.1083/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short). 2. Since the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has been challenged in these two appeals, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Father and mother of the deceased Girish Acharya filed a claim petition contending that on 10-09-2012 at about 8.30 a.m., deceased Girish Acharya along with a pillion rider was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-20/U-6241 from Nellikatte towards Alevoor. When they reached Nellikatte of Belle village, a bus bearing Registration No. KA-20/C-2849 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the rider as well as the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to KMC hospital at Manipal, however, he succumbed to the injuries on 11-09-2012 during the course of treatment. The parents of the deceased in the claim petition claimed that the deceased was working as a carpenter and earning Rs.14,000/- p.m. As on the date of death, the deceased was aged about 27 years, the family has lost the bread earner and hence sought for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. 5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner of the bus as well as the insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement. 6. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus, the deceased while proceeding in his motorcycle fell down and sustained fatal injuries to vital parts of the body and during the course of treatment he died on 11-09-2012. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.14,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.14,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. In view of that, the Tribunal reckoned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- deducting 50% towards his personal expenditure since he was bachelor, applying the multiplier 17 since he was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the aged parents; Rs.12,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the offending bus was covered by the insurance policy, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimants. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed MFA No.5468/2014 whereas the insurance company being aggrieved by the said judgment and award filed MFA No.894/2014 contending that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased instead of age of the deceased. 7. I have heard Sri.Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri.V.Narayana Swamy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. Perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties. 8. The records clearly disclose that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus, Girish Acharya who was riding the two wheeler had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on 11-09-2012. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a carpenter and earning Rs.14,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. Though the employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.3, in his cross-examination he has clearly admitted that he has not maintained any register regarding payment of salary to his employees. Carpentry work is not registered under the Small Scale Industries Act. He was making payment through cash. He does not have any record to show that he was paying salary of Rs.14,000/- p.m. to the deceased. Carpentry work is not registered under the Small Scale Industries Act. He was making payment through cash. He does not have any record to show that he was paying salary of Rs.14,000/- p.m. to the deceased. In view of that, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. The accident occurred in the year 2012, even the daily wage employees working in various Government Departments and also in Lok Adalath, the income is being taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. In the instant case, in the absence of necessary documents, the Tribunal ought to have reckoned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- while determining the compensation. Hence, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, applying the multiplier 17, since the deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of death, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,14,000/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.25,000/- towards other conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., as against the compensation of Rs.6,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The contention of the insurance company that the Tribunal while awarding compensation ought to have taken the age of the mother of the deceased instead of age of the deceased is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 in the case of AMRIT BHANU SHALI AND OTHERS v/s NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS and also latest judgment reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 in the case of MUNNALAL JAIN v/s VIPINKUMAR SHARMA. Hence the issue raised by the appellant-insurance company is no more resintegra. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. Hence, the contention of the insurance company is negatived. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER MFA No.5468/2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 22-11-2013 made in MVC No.1083/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi is modified and the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against Rs.6,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER MFA No.5468/2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 22-11-2013 made in MVC No.1083/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi is modified and the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against Rs.6,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. MFA No.894/2014 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. The amount in deposit before this court in MFA.No.894/2014 be transferred to MACT, Udupi.