S.C. Das, J.

1. By this appeal, filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, the appellant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., which was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the claim case, challenged the judgment and award dated 31.07.2008, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 4, Agartala, West , Tripura, in case No. TS(MAC) 580 of 2005. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P.K. Dhar for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. D.C. Roy and Mr. N. Chowdhury for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel, Mr. P. Gautam for respondent No. 5. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the owners of the alleged offending vehicles have chosen to remain absent.

2. Fact of the case, in short, is that Narayan Rupini, aged about 24 years, by profession a daily labour was travelling with Jeep vehicle No. TR01-A-2016 on 20.11.2000 from Thangnai bazaar (Howaibari) to Baramura and at about 6-45 a.m., at a place named Coffee bagan on Assam Agartala road, another Truck vehicle bearing No. TRL-3128 came from opposite direction and both the vehicles were driven most rashly and negligently and as a result, there was a collision between the vehicles because of rash and negligent driving and consequently Narayan Rupini suffered severe injury on his head and other parts of the body. He was taken to Teliamura Hospital from where he was shifted to G.B. Hospital and he died on 22.11.2000 at G.B. Hospital. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, being the parents of deceased Narayan Rupini, presented an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala for granting them compensation for the death of their bachelor son.

3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 herein, were the owner and insurer of truck vehicle and the respondent No. 4 and the appellant herein were the owner and insurer of the alleged jeep vehicle. All of them submitted written statement before the tribunal and considering their pleadings, the tribunal formulated following issues:--

i. Whether the deceased Narayan Rupini died on 22.11.2000 caused by the Motor accident on 20.11.2000 over the Assam-Agartala Road and if so, whether the said incident had occurred for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. TRL-3128 (Truck) and TR01-1-2016 (Jeep) by their driver?

ii. Who will pay the compensation?

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief and if so upto what extent?

4. In course of enquiry/trial, the claimant petitioner No. 1 examined himself as PW 1 and also examined another witness namely Sri Amar Singh Rupini who was a co passenger of the deceased in the Jeep vehicle at the time of accident. Claimant also proved copy of FIR of Teliamura P.S. Case No. 111/2000 under Sections 279/338 and 304(A) of IPC and also proved p.m. report in the name of the deceased and the charge sheet filed by the police after investigation.

Respondents adduce no evidence.

5. The tribunal decided the issues in favour of the petitioners and awarded them compensation of Rs. 4,12,000/- in all, with interest @ 9% per annum.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Dhar that the deceased was a bachelor, aged about 24 years and the claimants are his parents aged about 55 years so far revealed from the deposition of PW 1, at the time of accident. So, while determining multiplier, the tribunal would take into consideration the age of the parents and arrive at a decision that a multiplier of 9 shall apply. Whereas, the tribunal wrongly taking into consideration the age of the deceased, applied a multiplier of 17 for determining the compensation and thereby committed serious mistake.

He has also argued that the tribunal wrongly arrived at a finding that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs. 3000/- though there is evidence that he would earn Rs. 80/- per day and while determining compensation, the tribunal deducted 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased. But according to law, the tribunal would deduct 50% of the income of the deceased, while determining compensation. The t