JUDGMENT : These appeals filed by Appellant claimant and Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2014 made in MVC.No.604/2012 on the file of I Addl. District Judge and MACT. Raichur awarding compensation of Rs.07,23,000/-with 6% interest p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The claimant filed MFA.No.201453/2014 for enhancement and Insurance Company has filed MFA.No.201291/2014 for reduction. 3. The facts of the case are, the mother of the deceased has filed claim petition in MVC.No.604/2012 under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.22,45,000/-for the death of Velu Kumar in a Road Traffic Accident. The claimant contended that on 27.07.2012 the deceased Velu Kumar was proceeding on motorcycle bearing KA.No.36-Q-6685 from Mudgal to Lingasugur along with his friend Bhimappa. The deceased was pillion rider on the said motorcycle. When they came near Lingasugur via, MaskiLingasugur road on proper side, slowly with care and cautiously, at about 02.00 p.m. near Srinivas Guruji Shop, at that time a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-05/F-1361 came from opposite direction with great speed, rash and negligent and hit the said motorcycle, due to the accident, both rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained serious injuries and fractures. Immediately the injured were shifted to Government Hospital Lingasugur in an Ambulance. The deceased died while shifting to Raichur District Hospital. The jurisdiction police have registered the case in Crime No.169/2012 against the Lorry for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC and 187 of M.V. Act. Therefore, the respondent No.1 driver of the vehicle and respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 Insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. After issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondents No.1 and 2 remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company appeared through advocate and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. Further contended that R.C. owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL05F1361 has deliberately permitted a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the particular type of vehicle involved in the accident. Further contended that as on the date of accident without a valid permit and a fitness certification was proceeded to violate the conditions of the policy. Further contended that as on the date of accident without a valid permit and a fitness certification was proceeded to violate the conditions of the policy. The respondents No.1 and 2 colluded with the claimant to make monetary benefits. Therefore, sought to dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based on the aforesaid rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 27.07.2012 her son Velukumar was proceeding riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA36/Q6685 from Mudgal to Lingasugur along with one Bheemappa as pillion rider and at 02.00 p.m., when he was near Srinivas Gujari shop, R1 came by driving lorry bearing No.KL05/F1361 from opposite direction in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle and due to the actionable negligence of R1, Velukumar fell down and sustained grievous injuries and after the first aid while shifting to Raichur District Hospital her son succumbed to the injuries? 2. To what relief the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? 3. What order? 6. In order to establish the case of the claimant, the claimant examined PW.1 and witness as PW.2 and marked documents Ex.P.1 to 37. On the other hand respondent No.3 examined RW.1 and marked Ex.R.1. 7. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record by impugned judgment and award dated 03.05.2014 awarded compensation of Rs.07,23,000/-with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization of compensation amount. Hence, the claimant filed MFA.No.201453/2014 for enhancement and Insurance Company has filed MFA.No.201291/2014 for reduction. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Sri. Basavaraj. R. Math, learned counsel for the appellant claimant in MFA.No.201453/2014 vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that in the absence of any documents in respect of income of the deceased was taken at Rs.6,000/-per month thereby deduction of 50% of the amount towards his persons expenses proceeded to grant compensation amount Rs.6,48,000/-towards loss of dependency which is on lower side. He further contended towards other conventional heads the Tribunal has granted compensation amount which are very meager and requires further enhancement. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and material documents Ex.P.1 to 37, which are clearly depicts that the deceased was passed ITI course and certificate issued by State Trade and working as electrician at Lingasugur. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and material documents Ex.P.1 to 37, which are clearly depicts that the deceased was passed ITI course and certificate issued by State Trade and working as electrician at Lingasugur. Ex.P.37 ITI Certificate in Electrical issued by State Trade and deceased was working as electrician. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have taken income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-per month. Thereby Tribunal granted compensation towards loss of dependency is on lower side. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal as prayed for. 10. Per contra Sri. Rahul. R. Asture, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA.No.201291/2014 contended that the deceased was only 22 years and he has not produced any material documents to prove the income. In the absence of any proper evidence, the Tribunal has not justified in taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-per month. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the multiplier applicable at 11 instead of 18 as young aged parents aged was 53 years at the time of accident as per exhibits produced by the claimant. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the deceased Velu Kumar died on 27.02.2012 on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL05F1361. It is also not in dispute that material documents Ex.P.1 to 6 FIR, Complaint, Post Mortem Report, MVI Report, Spot Panchanama and Charge Sheet clearly indicates that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry. The jurisdictional police have registered case against Lorry in Crime No.169/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC and 187 of MV Act. It is specific case of the claimant that it is stated in the claim petition that her son deceased was working as electrician and getting Rs.10,000/-per month. He was holder of ITI Certificate issued by State Trade during the year 2009. It is specifically contended on oath that her son was getting Rs.10,000/-per month. It is specific case of the claimant that it is stated in the claim petition that her son deceased was working as electrician and getting Rs.10,000/-per month. He was holder of ITI Certificate issued by State Trade during the year 2009. It is specifically contended on oath that her son was getting Rs.10,000/-per month. The Tribunal considering the material on record committed an error in recording finding with regard to income of the deceased per month as against very averments made in the claim petition and against the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.37. 12. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not produced any contra material to disprove the claim of deceased except marking Ex.R.1 policy, which was in force on the date of accident. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and material document Ex.P.37 the State Trade Certificate and taking into consideration the age of the deceased at 22 years and year of the accident 2012 this Court is of the considered opinion that Tribunal ought to have been taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-per month, would be just and reasonable. 13. If monthly income of the deceased is taken into consideration at Rs.8,000/per month and 50% deducted towards his person expenses in view of dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others/vs/Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 and multiplier 18 is taking into consideration as age of the deceased is 22 years, it would come to Rs.4,000/-x 12 x 18 = Rs.8,64,000/-towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal while considering the conventional heads towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body by all way is on lower side, it requires further enhancement. 14. Insofar as, other contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-per month in the absence of any material documents produced cannot be accepted, for the simple reasons in the claim petition and in the evidence PW.1 stated that deceased was getting Rs.10,000/-per month and in support of claim and oral evidence, the claimant has produced Ex.P.37 State Trade Certificate issued by competent authority in the year 2010. Therefore, this Court already stated above that in the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement it is just and proper to take into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-per month. The contention of Insurance Company in the present circumstances cannot be accepted. 15. Insofar other contentions with regard to, the Tribunal was not justified in considering the multiplier at 18 instead of 11 taking into consideration the youngest parents aged about 53 years and I.D. produced at Ex.P.35, cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the provisions of under Section 166 and 168 for determination of multiplier in the case of Munna Lal Jan and Another/vs/Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 347. In Paras No.11 and 12 held as under; “Para No.11: The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi, has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: (Reshma Kumar case, SCC p.88, para 36) “36. In Sarla Verma, this court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarala Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purpose of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma. Para No.12: In Sarla Verma, at para 19, a two Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote (SCC p. 133). “19…. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased” 16. The latest judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited/vs/Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 at Para No.61 (vii) held that “The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier”. 17. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jan and Another/vs/Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 347 the multiplier should be taken at 18 and it is in accordance with law. 18. In view of aforesaid reasons the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merits. Accordingly, appeal filed by Insurance Company in MFA.No.201291/2014 is dismissed. 19. After reassessing the entire material on record, the claimant is entitled to compensation as under : Sl. No. Heads Amount 01. Towards loss of dependency (8,000x12x1850%) Rs.08,64,000/- 02. Towards Loss of Estate Rs.00,15,000/- 03. Towards Love and affection (As awarded by Tribunal) Rs.00,40,000/- 04. Funeral Expenses Rs.00,15,000/- 05. Transportation of dead body Rs.00,10,000/- Total Rs.09,44,000/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.07,23,000/- Total Rs.02,21,000/- 20. Thus the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.09,44,000/-as against Rs.07,23,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Towards loss of dependency (8,000x12x1850%) Rs.08,64,000/- 02. Towards Loss of Estate Rs.00,15,000/- 03. Towards Love and affection (As awarded by Tribunal) Rs.00,40,000/- 04. Funeral Expenses Rs.00,15,000/- 05. Transportation of dead body Rs.00,10,000/- Total Rs.09,44,000/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.07,23,000/- Total Rs.02,21,000/- 20. Thus the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.09,44,000/-as against Rs.07,23,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 21. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and consequently the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.05.2014 made in MVC.No.604/2012 on the file of I Addl. District Judge and MACT Raichur, is modified holding that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.09,44,000/-as against Rs.07,23,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.02,21,000/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit made by the appellant-company to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.