1. This is an Insurance appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.06.2014 made in M.V.C. No.875/2013 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Belgaum, awarding compensation of Rs.33,15,500/to the respondents – parents of the deceased.

The facts of the case are:

2. It is the case of the respondents before the Tribunal that son of the claimants in M.V.C. No.875/2013 namely Sham Mahadev Yallurkar was riding his motor cycle from Udyambag towards Desur on Belgaum Khanapur road. When he came near the spot of the accident near Desur cross, from opposite side an autorickshaw bearing No.KA22/A2238 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bike of the deceased, he sustained fatal injuries. He was immediately shifted to KLE Hospital and he was in ICU Ward for two days, while under treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. After conducting the postmortem, the body was handed over to the parents. The deceased was aged about 23 years old at the time of accident and he was serving in Army as a Soldier and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and he was maintaining his old parents. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their only son and they have suffered mentally and financially. Therefore, the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. The appellant and respondent No.3 were the respondents before the Tribunal, filed separate objections, denied the petition averments, age, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the deceased Sham due to his own rash and negligent driving, attempted to overtake the vehicle, as such, he dashed the autorickshaw. Thereby the accident was occurred. Therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable etc.

4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether petitioners prove that Sham Mahadev Yallurkar died in RTA occurred on 08.04.2013 at about 15:30 hours on BelgaumKhanapur Road, near Desur Cross, Desur on account of actionable negligent driving of the Rickshaw bearing No.KA22/A2238?

2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum?

4. What order or award?”

5. In order to establish the case, the 1st claimant/father examined as P.W.1 and another as P.W.2, marked the documents Exs.P1 to P14. The respondents have not examined, except

producing Exs.R1 to R4.

6. After considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.33,15,500/with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

8. Smt. Preeti Shashank, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, taking the multiplier 18, applicable to the age of the deceased at 23 years, who is a bachelor is erroneous and contrary to law. The Tribunal ought to have taken multiplier 11, applicable to the younger parents (mother aged 52 years). Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. She further contended that the compensation granted under the head loss of dependency requires to be reduced by adopting the multiplier of 11. Therefore, she sought to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, Shri B.M.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and award by relying upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

11. In view of the rival conten