1. This appeal by the appellant Corporation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.7.2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 3227 of 2010 on the file of the Fourteenth Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City (SCCH. 10), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), on the ground that a sum of Rs.23,94,154 awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its payment as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of Rs.40,00,000, on account of the death of the deceased Laxmanachar Joshi in the road accident, is on higher side and disproportionate to the income of the deceased and is liable to be reduced.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are:
The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Laxmanachar Joshi. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under S.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, contending that on 1.4.2010 at about 11.45 a.m. the deceased was standing at K.S.R.T.C. bus stand to go to his BSNL Office, at that time, the driver of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. KA 40 - F 206 came in a rash and negligent manner from Sidlaghatta side and then ran over the leg of the deceased and caused the accident. Immediately, he was shifted in an ambulance to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore and later he succumbed to injuries.

3. It is the further case of claimants that deceased was aged about 59 years and hale and hearty prior to the accident. He was a retired Junior Warrant Officer, IAF, New Delhi, and working as a Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, Devanahalli, and drawing the salary of Rs.36,540 per month and also drawing Defence pension of Rs.6,733 per month, totally, he was drawing the salary of Rs.43,273 per month. He was the only earning member of the family and contributing the same for the welfare and maintenance of his family. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered mental shock and agony and lost happiness in life.

4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and the other materials available on file, and by assigning valid reasons has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs.23,94,154 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its payment.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation has filed this appeal contending that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it requires to be reduced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and learned counsel appearing for the claimants at considerable length of time.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the net income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency since he was aged about 59 years and he was having the remaining service of six months only. If at all, if the Claims Tribunal wanted to take, it ought to have taken 50 per cent of Rs.28,353, i.e., basic plus D.A. as per Exh. P16 and 50 per cent of Rs.6,733 which he was getting as pension from Defence as his income and deducted 50 per cent towards personal expenses as the wife is the only dependant since children are aged about 28 and 24 years respectively and are working and adopted the multiplier of 8. Further, he submits that since the deceased was having another six months service, a sum of Rs.2,40,000 may be awarded. Therefore, he submitted that the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,62,816 instead of Rs.23,84,154 and hence the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimants, inter alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just a