JUDGMENT :

M.I. Arun, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi, Kundapura (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC No. 653/2015, respondent No. 2-Insurance Company has preferred MFA No. 968/2018 and the petitioners therein have preferred MFA No. 3047/2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2015, at about 3.20 p.m., the deceased Sukumar Shetty was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-15/K-1502 from Hosangadi towards Siddapura side. When he reached near Mattiberu of Siddapura village, Kundapura Taluk, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-16/A-3776 belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 being driven by the rider (sic driver) in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased Sukumar Shetty sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the petitioners preferred MVC No. 653/2015 and claimed a compensation of Rs. 41,25,000/-.

4. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother, petitioner No. 2 is the sister and petitioner No. 3 is the father of the deceased Sukumar Shetty.

5. After service of summons, respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex parte. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal through its Counsel, filed its written statement, denied liability and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The petitioners got examined two witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P17. The respondents did not examine any witness but got marked one document as Ex. R1.

7. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 31,99,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 2-Insurance Company has filed MFA No. 968/2018. Not satisfied by the award, the petitioners have filed MFA No. 3047/2018.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

9. It is the contention of respondent No. 2-Insurance Company that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Similarly, the income of the deceased has been arrived at Rs. 20,000/- per month without any basis. That the Tribunal has taken future prospects at 50% when the deceased had no stable and a permanent job. The Tribunal committed an error by deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses instead of 50% as the deceased was a Bachelor.

10. The petitioners have contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the same.

11. It is noticed that the accident is of the year 2015. The age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal based on the certificate-Ex. P13 issued by one Kalyani Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru, which states that the deceased was employed with Kalyani Motors Pvt. Ltd. as a Senior Officer and his monthly salary was Rs. 23,900/-, has considered his income at Rs. 20,000/- per month. It has further added 50% under the head of future prospects and has deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and considered the age of petitioner No. 1, mother of the deceased and adopted a multiplier of 14 and arrived at Rs. 30,24,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. It has further awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, it has awarded a sum of Rs. 31,99,000/- as compensation to the petitioners. We find that the evidence relied upon, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded under conventional heads to be erroneous and not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble S