JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the claimants in MVC No.4682/2009 on the file of the MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH.13) (for short, ‘Tribunal’) impugning the common judgment and award dated 27.2.2012 by which the claim petition in MVC No.4682/2009 as well as the claim petition in MVC No.5776/2009 are considered and adjudicated upon. 2. The claimants in MVC No.4682/2009, who are the parents of the deceased Suresh presented a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 asserting that their son, Suresh died in a road accident while he was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-41/3322 with a pillion rider. They asserted that the accident was a collision between the motor cycle being ridden by the deceased and lorry bearing No.KA-50 27. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and decree has awarded a total compensation of R.4,12,500/-including a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-towards loss of dependency to the claimants, and the Tribunal while deciding on the liability, concluded that the accident was a result of contributory negligence of both the deceased and driver of the lorry in question and directed the Insurance Companies of the two wheeler and the lorry to deposit such amount within a period of 30 days. 4. The grievance canvassed on behalf of the appellants in this appeal is two-fold: (a) In a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim; and, (b) The Tribunal, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)6 SCC 121 , could not have applied the multiplier of ‘17’ and should have applied the multiplier of ‘18’. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants as regards first of the contentions has relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9694/2013 (2017 SCC Online SC 1443) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Appaji and another vs. M.Krishna and another, (2004) ACJ 1289. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants as regards first of the contentions has relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9694/2013 (2017 SCC Online SC 1443) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Appaji and another vs. M.Krishna and another, (2004) ACJ 1289. 6. The Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of Appaji and another vs. M.Krishna and another that an insurance company cannot be permitted to set up the defence of negligence or fault on the part of the claimant/injured or the deceased as that would have the effect of negating the effect of statutory provision dispensing with the proof of fault. Paragraph-24 of this decision by the Division Bench of this Court reads as follows: “We may before parting make it clear that the accident in the instant case had taken place while the deceased was himself riding a two-wheeler. No other vehicle was involved in the accident against whose driver or owner could the claimant make a claim for payment of compensation on no fault basis under section 163-A of the Act. There was no possibility of even accusing another vehicle or its driver of negligence or rashness. In cases where the accident involves two vehicles one accusing the other of negligence, it may be open to both to maintain a claim on no fault basis under section 163-A of the Act. That is because such a claim will be permissible no matter the driver or the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident may dispute his negligence in the matter. The argument that while the claimant may not be required to prove fault, the respondents can prove that the accident had not occurred on account of any fault on their part must fail for once the respondent is allowed to set up that defence, the claimant will have to necessarily lead evidence to rebut the same by proving that the accident had indeed occurred on account of the fault of the respondents. Any such requirement of proving the fault having been dispensed with by sub-section (2) to section 163-A, permitting the respondents to set up the defence that the accident was without their fault would amount to negating the effect of the statutory provision dispensing with proof of fault.” 7. Any such requirement of proving the fault having been dispensed with by sub-section (2) to section 163-A, permitting the respondents to set up the defence that the accident was without their fault would amount to negating the effect of the statutory provision dispensing with proof of fault.” 7. And a reiteration of this proposition is also found in the later decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2017 SCC online SC Page 1443, and Paragraph 8 of this decision reads as follows: “8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer as/or to understand the provisions of section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which will not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.” 8. In view of this settled law, though the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend to the contrary, it will have to be perforce held by this court that the deduction of 50% of the compensation payable in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of negligence attributed, or attributable to, the claimants would be impermissible, and the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in this regard would definitely therefore call for interference. 9. 9. As regards the submission on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal could not have applied the multiplier ‘17’ and should have applied the multiplier of ‘18’, the canvass by the appellants is completely covered by the enunciation by the Honourable Supreme Court in Paragraph 35 of the decision in Sarla Verma vs. Bangalore Transport Corporation which reads as follows: “There are however discrepancies/errors in the multiplier scale given in the Second Schedule Table. It prescribes a lesser compensation for cases where a higher multiplier of 18 is applicable and a larger compensation with reference to cases where a lesser multiplier of 15, 16, or 17 is applicable. From the quantum of compensation specified in the table, it is possible to infer that a clerical error has crept in the Schedule and the `multiplier' figures got wrongly typed as 15, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5 & 5 instead of 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5.” 10. As such, the correct multiplier that should be applied in the facts of the case, where there is no dispute about the age, will be ‘18’ and the compensation will have to be determined accordingly. If this multiplier is applied and the annual income of the deceased as concluded by the Tribunal at Rs.36,000/-is taken, and further allowing deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses as per the Note appended to the Second Schedule, the compensation payable to the claimants will be Rs.4,32,000/-. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants/appellants will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.4,36,500/-including a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-towards the loss of income and dependency and Rs.4,500/-for loss of estate and obsequies and other expenses as against a total sum of Rs.2,06,250/-awarded by the Tribunal. 12. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants/appellants will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.4,36,500/-including a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-towards the loss of income and dependency and Rs.4,500/-for loss of estate and obsequies and other expenses as against a total sum of Rs.2,06,250/-awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed modifying the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC No.4682/2009 and the insurers viz., the first and third respondents, shall deposit the difference in compensation amount payable to the claimants/appellants in terms of this judgment that is Rs.2,30,250/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and upon such deposit, the apportionment and disbursal shall be as per the orders of the Tribunal. No costs.