( 1 ) THIS is a claimants' appeal arising from the judgment and award dated 23. 9. 1996 passed in MVC no. 1039 of 1993 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-IX, Bangalore City. For convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks before the Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE claimants are the parents of one hazi Mohammed Haneef. He died in a motor accident on 30. 3. 1993, when Tempo bearing No. CAA 6591 (of which the respondent no. 2 is the owner and the respondent no. 1 is the insurer) dashed against the motor cycle (KA-01-H-7054) which he was riding. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants filed MVC No. 1039 of 1993 claiming compensation of Rs. 15,12,000.

( 3 ) PETITION was resisted by the respondents. On the pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident which took place on 30. 3. 93 at about 11. 10 p. m. near Maharani's college Circle, resulting in death of one hazi Mohammed Haneef, was due to rash and negligent driving of Tempo bearing No. CAA 6591 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to compensation as prayed for? (3) What order?

( 4 ) THE father (claimant No. 1) was examined as PW 1. An eyewitness was examined as PW 2. The family auditor was examined as PW 3. Documents P-l to P-l2 were exhibited on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was let in. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by judgment and award dated 23. 9. 96. It held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Tempo bearing No. CAA 6591. It also held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition to the date of realisation. The compensation amount awarded is made up of rs. 1,65,000 towards loss of dependency and Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and funeral expenses.

( 5 ) AT the time of accident, the deceased was aged 20 years and was a bachelor. The claimants who are the parents were aged 47 years and 42 years respectively. The deceased was a student studying in I year b. Com. He was the proprietor of a business carried under the name and style of H. S. Traders and he was an income tax assessee. The return filed for the assessment year 1992-93 disclosed that the deceased had an income of Rs. 31,494 in his business and had paid a sum of Rs. 1,647 as income tax. In view of the said evidence, the tribunal after deducting the income tax, took the annual income of the deceased as rs. 30,000. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50 per cent was deducted towards his personal and living expenses and the contribution to the family (annual loss of dependency) was determined as Rs. 15,000 per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11, having regard to the age of the parents and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,65,000.

( 6 ) THE appellants have filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. They have no grievance in regard to the annual income arrived at by the Tribunal as Rs. 30,000. Their grievance is in regard to deduction of 50 per cent towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. They contend that only one- third ought to have been deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and if so, the annual loss of dependency would be Rs. 20,000 p. a. instead of Rs. 15,000 p. a. They also contend that as the parents were aged 47 and 42, the multiplier applied ought to have been 15 instead of 11, having regard to the provisions of the Second Schedule to Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (which was introduced with effect from 14. 11. 1994 ). Appellants, therefore, contend that the loss of dependency ought to have been Rs. 20,000 x 15 = rs. 3,00,000.

( 7 ) AS this is a claimants' appeal, the finding regarding negligence does not require to be considered. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded is inadequate an