Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The first claimant in O.P.(M.V).No.1204/05 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant herein. The appellant, along with her children, filed the application for compensation for the death of her son-Shibu, who died in a motor vehicle accident, caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle, insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle, insured with the respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,69,750/- under various heads as follows :

Head Amount Rs.

Loss of dependency 144,000.00

Transportation expenses 2,500.00

Damage to clothings 250.00

Pain and sufferings 5,000.00

Loss of love and affection 15,000.00

Funeral expenses 3,000.00

Total 169,750.00

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has come before this Court, with the above appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased-Shibu was working as an Electrician abroad and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken only Rs.3,000/-as notional income of the deceased, which is on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has taken only 8 as the multiplier, reckoning the age of the dependant as the criterion for ascertaining the multiplier to award compensation under the head loss of dependency, which is incorrect, as the age of the deceased has to be reckoned for that purpose, in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2012 ACJ 2002). Further, the amounts awarded under the heads pain and suffering, transportation expenses, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. are also on the lower side and no amount has been awarded under the head loss of estate. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to get enhancement of compensation under all heads.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency, the age of the deceased or the age of the dependants, whichever is higher, has to be adopted and in this case, the dependant being the mother, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking the age of the mother of the deceased for adopting the multiplier and there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal in this regard. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the decisions reported in K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas (1994(1) KLT 67 (SC), UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996(2) KLT 218 (SC) and Mariyumma v. Govinda (2013(3) KLT 595), in support of his contentions.

5. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail.

6. Since there are conflicting decisions regarding the question as to whether the age of the deceased or the age of the parents in the case of death of a bachelor, has to be considered, we thought that it is necessary to clarify the position, in the light of the subsequent decisions in this regard.

7. Normally, in an action on tort, while awarding compensation for death, what is to be reckoned, is the loss sustained by the dependants/legal representatives/legal heirs, on account of the death of the deceased. Further, the principle says that the amount awarded under the head loss of dependency will exhaust during the life time of the dependants and it should not go beyond that period. Further, in tort, the payment of compensation depends upon proof of negligence as well. But, by passage of time, there was a new thought sprouted that the life of a person has to be valued in terms of mone