K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

1. This insurer's appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 4th April, 2013 passed by the XI Additional Small Causes Court and MACT, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No. 6532/2011. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 30,51,408/- to the claimants.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the claimants and the third respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Third respondent is arrayed as respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants are the widow and son of deceased M.K. Guruswamy. On 29th May, 2011 at about 4.00 p.m., when the said M.K. Guruswamy and the pillion rider Puneeth were proceeding on motor cycle bearing No. KA-06-S-8729 near Bhakthanatha High School, B.G. Nagara within Bellur Police Station limits, the driver of the Honda City Car bearing No. KA-05-ME-3654 drove that in rash and negligent manner and dashed against them and caused accident.

4. In the accident. M.K. Guruswamy and Puneeth suffered injuries and were shifted to A.C. Giri Hospital, B.G. Nagara. M.K. Guruswamy succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. His wife and son filed MVC No. 6532/2011 and Puneeth, the pillion rider filed MVC No. 6770/2011, alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Honda City Car No. KA-05-ME-3654 by its driver.

5. In M.V.C. No. 6532/2011, the claimants contended that due to untimely death of M.K. Guruswamy they have suffered damages and thus claimed compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest.

6. The third respondent/owner of the vehicle did not contest the matter. The insurer contested the matter denying the accident, negligence on the part of driver of the car, coverage of the policy, age, occupation and income of the deceased. Insurer further contended that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle. It contended that the rider of the motor cycle and the driver of the Honda city car were not holding valid driving licence and thus it is not liable to pay compensation.

7. The Tribunal clubbed MVC No. 6532/2011 and MVC 6770/2011 and recorded common evidence. On petitioner's side, P.Ws. 1 to 4 are examined and Exs. P.1 to P.14 are marked. On behalf of respondents no evidence is adduced. The Tribunal after hearing the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 30,51,408/- in M.V.C. No. 6532/2011 with interest at 6% p.a. The above appeal is confined to sustainability of the award in M.V.C. No. 6532/2011.

8. Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in his arguments seeks to assail the award mainly on the following grounds :

(i) The deceased was left with only three years of service and therefore the Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier, the Tribunal committed error in taking multiplicand at Rs. 41,965/- per month for the entire 9 multiplier;

(ii) The widow of the deceased gets monthly pension on account of the death of her husband. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have given deduction to the same while computing the compensation;

(iii) Since the second claimant (son) is major, the Tribunal ought to have deducted of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal committed error in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased;

(iv) The Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car.

In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments.

(i) Kumaran and others v. Roy Mathew and others, 2017 A.C.J. 1323.

(ii) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Narasubai Joshi @ N.L. Joshi & others, I.L.R. 2014 Kant. 4931.

(iii) Union of India and others v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar and others, I.L.R. 2000 Kant. 3809.

(iv) Smt. Arati and others v. Gouspeer H