K.L. Manjunath, J.

1. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the MACT., Bangalore on 14.8.2013 in MVC No. 6424/2011.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal questioning the liability saddling on it and also to reduce the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

4. The admitted facts are that the petitioner/second respondent is the mother of one Nagarjuna, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 25.7.2011 at about 3.50 p.m. He was aged about 30 years. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker bearing registration No. KA-40 7499 which dashed against the motor cycle. He was immediately shifted to Command Hospital, where he was declared dead. He was aged about 30 years and working as Office Administrator at Radical Net Works, Frazer Town, Bangalore and drawing a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. He was a M.Com., graduate. In addition to that he was also a graduate in Library Science. The Insurance Company contended that since the lorry driver did not possess the special endorsement required for transportation of hazardous goods, the liability cannot be fastened on it and also contended that the claim made by the claimant is on the excessive side.

5. The Tribunal considering the evidence let-in by the parties came to the conclusion that when the accident occurred, the tanker was not carrying on any hazardous or combustible materials. Since it was an empty tank even the person who have travelling in heavy goods vehicle (HGV) could have driven the vehicle, accordingly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The Tribunal considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month, considering his age, added 50% of his income towards future prospectus, thereafter deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased and not the age of his mother and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 16,77,000/-. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

6. Mr. R. Jaiprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that even though when the accident occurred, the tanker did not possess or carrying on any hazardous or combustible material since it is registered as a petrol tanker, the special endorsement was required to be made in the driving licence. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability. He further contends that deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17 is an error committed by the Tribunal. On these grounds, he requests the Court to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri G.V. Murthy, learned Counsel for the claimant submits that since the tanker was not carrying on any hazardous or combustible material since the driver had valid driving licence to drive HGV, the liability fastened by the Tribunal is truthful and appeal has to be dismissed.

8. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, he requests the Court to reconsider the evidence and award the same in accordance with law.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following points:-

"(1) Whether the liability saddled on the appellant-Insurance Company by the Tribunal required to be interfered with?

(2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?"

10. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, the appellant is not disputing the driver possessing a valid licence to drive a HGV. The contention of the appellant is that since the vehicle in question is registered as petrol tanker, special endorsement was required to be obtained by the driver to drive a petrol tanker. Admittedly, when the accident occurred, it was an empty tank. In the cross-examination of RW. 1, he has admitted as hereunder:-

"When the accident occurred, there was no petroleum pro