JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.06.2010 passed in MVC No.778/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Member, Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal'). 2. Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 3. The appellant is respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the claimants in the above stated MVC which was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Balappa Dharennavar. It is stated that on 10.3.2007, when the deceased was going towards Hidkal Dam cross on service road of NH4, a motor cycle bearing No.MH-09/AX-5597 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased; due to which, he died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged 48 years and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. 4. On service of notice, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle appeared before the Tribunal but not filed any objections. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. It also denied the occurrence of the accident and contended that they are not liable to pay compensation. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 also appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statements claiming compensation stating that they are also legal heirs of the deceased Balappa Dharennavar. 5. In support of the claim petition, claimant No.1-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking 22 documents as per Exs.P1 to P22. Respondent No.3 was examined as RW1 and Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW2 apart from marking 16 documents as per Exs.R1 to R16. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount in Court till rival claimants resolve their dispute. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as well as liability fastened on it. 6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as well as liability fastened on it. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondent No.6 physically, whereas other counsels for the claimants appeared through Video Conferencing. Perused the original records. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel would submit that the rider of the motor cycle was in a drunken condition at the time of the accident and charge sheet had been filed against the rider of the said motor cycle. The Tribunal without taking note of the same, proceeded to fasten the liability on the insurance company. Thus, he prays for absolving the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 8. Learned counsel without prejudice to the above contention would submit that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation wrongly adopted the multiplier of 13 taking the age of the deceased as 48 years. It is his submission that Ex.R3-concluded court proceedings would indicate that the age of the deceased was 30 years as on the date of filing Crl.Misc.No.2/1975. It is his submission that if the deceased was aged 30 years in the year 1975, as on the date of the accident in the year 2007, the deceased would have been 62 years. Therefore, it is his submission that correct multiplier would be 7, and hence, the Tribunal committed an error in adopting multiplier of 13. Thus, he prays for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6-owner of the offending vehicle would submit that the contention of the insurance company that the rider of the motor cycle was in an inebriated condition has not been proved and the rider of the motor cycle was not in a drunken condition at the time of the accident. The insurance company failed to prove the said contention. 10. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the Tribunal had rightly adopted multiplier of 13 taking the age of the deceased as 48 years relying on Ex.P5-PM report. It is his submission that the age mentioned in the PM report is to be taken for calculating the compensation and adopting the multiplier. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. It is his submission that the age mentioned in the PM report is to be taken for calculating the compensation and adopting the multiplier. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the original records, the following points would arise for consideration in this appeal: a) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company proved that the rider of the motor cycle was in an inebriated condition at the time of the accident? b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the deceased as 48 years and adopting the multiplier of 13? My answer to the above points would be in the negative for the following reasons: 12. The accident which had taken place on 10.03.2007 involving motor cycle bearing No. MH- 09/AX-5597 and accidental death of the deceased Balappa Dharennavar are not in dispute in this appeal. The Insurance Company is in appeal with regard to fastening of liability on it. The insurance company contends that the rider of the motor cycle was in an inebriated condition i.e. he was in a drunken state at the time of the accident. Even though the insurance company has taken the said contention in their statement but they have not proved the same in a manner known to law, even though they examined the officer of the insurance company as RW2. Even though in Ex.R14, the doctor has stated that patient has consumed alcohol but he is not intoxicated. Ex.R14- Wound Certificate relates to respondent No.1-rider of the motor cycle. When Ex.R14-Wound Certificate states that he has not intoxicated, to prove their contention that respondent No.1 was in a drunken state, the insurance company ought to have examined the author of Ex.R14. Moreover, charge sheet had been filed against respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 185 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and charges leveled against respondent No.1-rider of the motor cycle came to be exonerated. The doctor examined in Crl.Misc.547/2007 has stated that even though the blood and urine samples were taken, no document relating to chemical examination is placed on record. Thus, I am of the view that the above contention is liable to be rejected. 13. The doctor examined in Crl.Misc.547/2007 has stated that even though the blood and urine samples were taken, no document relating to chemical examination is placed on record. Thus, I am of the view that the above contention is liable to be rejected. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer submitted that since the deceased was aged about more than 60 years; adopting the multiplier of 13 by taking the age of the deceased as 48 years relying on Ex.P5-PM report is not proper. Learned counsel relies on Ex.R3- order dated 15.2.1977 in Crl.Misc. No.2/1975 on the file of the Principal Munisiff & JMFC, Hukkeri, wherein the age of the deceased Balappa Dharennavar is shown as 30 years. The said petition was filed in the year 1975 by the claimant No.1- against the deceased Balappa Dharennavar seeking maintenance. In the said petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 30 years in the year 1977. If the same is taken into consideration, the deceased would be 62 years as on the date of the accident in the year 2007. As against the age mentioned in Ex.P5-PM report, the age mentioned in the concluded court proceedings in Ex.R3 will have to be taken into account. The Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and taken deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3rd of the assessed income which is not disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation under the head of loss of dependency as follows: Rs.3,000 1/3 = Rs.2,000 x 12 x 7 = Rs.1,68,000/- 14. The compensation granted on the other heads are not disturbed. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,38,000/- as against Rs.3,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. b) The judgment and award passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,82,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,38,000/-. c) The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for depositing the same as ordered by the Tribunal.