JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is 3rd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent Nos.1 & 2 in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 455 and 475 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- for the death of their son, namely, Y. Manohar, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.10.2008. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows: On 09.10.2008 at about 7.15 p.m. the deceased was going on his TVS Star City motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03AA 2477 towards Palamaner and when he reached near C.K.Babu Colony, a Bajaj Tempo (Trax) bearing registration No.TN 38B 1967 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Chennai and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. The Station House Officer, Chittoor Traffic P.S., registered a case in crime No.92 of 2008 against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owners and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle, hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 2nd respondent was set ex parte. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is contended by the 1st respondent that the offending vehicle was sold to the 2nd respondent, hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company that due to negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle by the deceased the accident occurred and the driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. It is pleaded by the 3rd respondent/Insurance company that due to negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle by the deceased the accident occurred and the driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s Bajaj Tempo bearing No.TN 38B 1967 or due to the rash and negligent riding of the TVS Star City motor cycle by the deceased himself of both? 2) Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for the death of the deceased Y.Manohar, if so, to what amount and from whom? 4) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly, partly allowed the claim petition granting an amount of Rs.18,72,800/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that in case of death of unmarried, the age of the parents has to be considered instead of age of the deceased and also erred in awarding excess compensation towards loss of dependency. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 12. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.2. He deposed in his evidence that the accident arose due to negligence of the driver of the offending tempo. 12. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.W.2. He deposed in his evidence that the accident arose due to negligence of the driver of the offending tempo. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit his evidence and the suggestions put to him were denied by him. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report, Ex.A.3- certified copy of charge sheet, and Ex.A.4-certified copy of accident information report. Ex.A.1 goes to show that a crime was registered against the driver of the offending car. Ex.A.3 also goes to show that after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending tempo. Ex.A.4 discloses that the accident occurred because of the driving of the offending tempo driver. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.4 clearly proves about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tempo resulting in the accident and in the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence on record, also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. According to the petitioners, the deceased was 32 years old and getting Rs.21,000/- p.m. as a Supervisor in Suryodaya Infrastructures (P) Limited, Magadi Road, Bangalore. In order to establish the income of the deceased, the petitioners got examined P.W.3, the Director of Suryodaya Infrastructures (P) Limited, Magadi Road, Bangalore, as P.W.3 and got marked Ex.A.7-salary certificate of the deceased. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,300/- as well as the age of the deceased as 35 years. After deducting 50% from out of monthly income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier ‘16’ to the age group of the deceased as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma case, the Tribunal rightly arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.18,52,800/- (Rs.9,650/- (Rs.19,300/- - Rs.9,650/-) x 12 months x multiplier ‘16’), apart from granting Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Thus, in all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.18,62,800/- towards compensation. Thus, in all, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.18,62,800/- towards compensation. But, due to oversight, it was typed as Rs.18,72,800/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,72,800/- towards compensation. The said compensation amount of Rs.18,62,800/-, in my view, is just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. By giving cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal in its order held that as per Ex.A.4-certified copy of accident information report, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending tempo and the 3rd respondent/Insurance company was the insurer of the offending tempo at the time of accident, therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. This Court feels that there is no illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. 15. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the findings given by the Tribunal and the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law, except the typed mistake of quantum of amount committed by the Tribunal as Rs.18,72,800/- instead of Rs.18,62,800/-. Therefore, the same has to be modified. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the decree and order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2009, as the petitioners are entitled total compensation of Rs.18,62,800/- instead of Rs.18,72,800/-. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.