JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants assailing the judgment and award passed by the VI Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumkur in MVC No.305/2015 dated 10.12.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Though the appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.08.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., Sri. Ashok was proceeding on Bajaj Discover Motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA-04/EK-6674 from his residence to Vigneshwara Comfort and when he came at NH206, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06/C-5466 came rashly & negligently and dashed to the motorbike on which the said Ashok was proceeding. As a result of the same, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to General Hospital, Tumkur and thereafter he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for higher treatment and there he was admitted as an inpatient from 02.08.2012 to 30.08.2012. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a cutter and layer of granite tiles under a Class-I contractor and earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m. For having lost the bread-earner, his parents filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2 insurer appeared and filed the written statement by admitting that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, but his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the deceased was riding the motorbike rashly and negligently without holding a valid and effective driving license. It is also contended that the deceased was a minor and not entitled to ride a motorbike, and hence he has also contributed to the alleged accident. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the said petition. 5. It is also contended that the deceased was a minor and not entitled to ride a motorbike, and hence he has also contributed to the alleged accident. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the said petition. 5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 02.08.2012 at 11.45 a.m. their son deceased Ashok was going from his house at Vidhyanagara to go to Srinivasa Hospital on his motorbike bearing No. KA-06/EK-6674 on the left side of the road and when he was so going in front of Vigneshwara Comfort, N.H.206, Tumkur, at that point, the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06C-5466 was driven rashly and negligently by its driver at high speed and dashed against the deceased, causing the accident? (2) Whether the petitioners have proved that as a result of the accident, the deceased Ashok sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 30.08.2012 not responding to the medical treatment? (3) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the minor Ashok (deceased) without any D.L. was riding the said bike on the main road negligently without any vehicular traffic sense and dashed the said lorry from behind and caused the accident? (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, by how much and from whom? (5) What order? 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. The respondents have not led any evidence. 7. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and holding of 25% negligence on the part of the deceased, the appellants-claimants are before this Court. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that though the petitioners have contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m., the Tribunal by taking the income at the rate of Rs. 3,500/-p.m., has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He further contended that the fixing of liability to the extent of 25% on the deceased is erroneous and the same is not sustainable in law. He further contended that the deceased was minor and no contribution could have been assessed on his part by the Tribunal. 3,500/-p.m., has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He further contended that the fixing of liability to the extent of 25% on the deceased is erroneous and the same is not sustainable in law. He further contended that the deceased was minor and no contribution could have been assessed on his part by the Tribunal. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation and to fix the whole liability on the respondent-insurer. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently argued that the deceased was a minor and was not entitled to ride a motorbike and the owner of the motorbike has allowed the person who is not competent to ride the motorbike, to ride it on the national highway which is illegal and not permissible under law. He further contended that when he was not knowing driving and has taken the vehicle on the highway, the accident has occurred due to the contribution made by the deceased himself. In that light, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased has also contributed to the extent of 25% to the alleged accident. The petitioners have not produced any documents to substantiate their contention to show that he was earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m. In that light, the Tribunal by taking Rs. 3,500/-p.m., has awarded just compensation and the same requires to be confirmed. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the said petition. 10. The accident in question is not in dispute, so also the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the respondent insurer. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident in question has solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. But the Tribunal has erroneously fixed 25% liability on the deceased. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the documents produced by the petitioners establishes the fact that the deceased was not holding a driving license to drive a two-wheeler and it is also not in dispute that he has taken the said two-wheeler on NH-206, without there being any license and the owner of the said motorbike has allowed him to drive the said motorbike on the main road. By considering the said fact, it appears that the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident. By considering the said fact, it appears that the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident. The Tribunal after considering all the facts and circumstances, has come to the conclusion that the deceased has also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. Under the facts and circumstances, the said finding appears to be just and proper and it is not erroneous and the same is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly the same is confirmed by rejecting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As could be seen from the judgment and award, it is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a cutter and he used to lay the granite tiles under Class-I contractor and earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m. To substantiate the said fact, they have not produced any documents. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal by taking notional income at the rate of Rs. 3,500/-p.m., after deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased, and after applying the multiplier ‘14’, as he was a bachelor by taking the age of the youngest parent of the deceased, has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,94,000/-towards ‘loss of dependency’. Though under the normal circumstances the compensation awarded appears to be just and proper, but when admittedly the accident is of the year 2012 and taking into consideration the year of the accident and when the claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/-p.m., the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-and after deducting 50% towards the personal expenses, and taking the multiplier ‘15’, ought to have awarded the compensation. If the same method is adopted, then under such circumstances, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-towards ‘loss of dependency’. Even as could be seen from the judgment and award, the records indicate that the deceased was admitted in the hospital from 02.08.2012 to 30.08.2012. During that particular period, his parents might have incurred some medical expenses in this behalf. In the light of the said circumstances, I feel that if an amount of Rs. 50,000/-is awarded under the conventional head, it is also going to meet the ends of justice. 12. During that particular period, his parents might have incurred some medical expenses in this behalf. In the light of the said circumstances, I feel that if an amount of Rs. 50,000/-is awarded under the conventional head, it is also going to meet the ends of justice. 12. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as against Rs. 3,45,820/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.305/2013 dated 10.12.2015, is modified as indicated above. The respondent-insurer is directed to deposit 75% of the compensation amount awarded by this Court, along with an interest @ 6% p.a., after deducting the interest for the delayed period, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount in deposit, if any, may be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. The Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.