K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THERE is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 1. The appeal by the Insurance Company is frivolous on every point which is urged. The Insurance Company learns no lessons and they will vex the Court with  cases which have no legs to stand.
(2.) THE arguments put forward by the counsel for the insurer are ; i) the change of transfer of vehicle was not informed as required under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the insurer is not liable. ii) the age of the claimant was said to be 43 years and she had stated that the deceased was 2 years elder to her. The tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 40 years and has applied a multiplier which was higher in value than what should have been applied if appropriate age had been taken; iii) the claimant was the only legal representative of the deceased and 1/3 rd deduction had been taken; iv) the average income was taken as Rs. 5400/ - which is excessive. A provision under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act sets out a procedure for informing the transfer but it has nothing to do with the liability of the Insurance Company which must exist at all times in a claim by third pBy against an insurer on the principle reasoned under Section 157(1) that there will be a deemed transfer whenever there was a transfer of the vehicle and the want of information to the insurer is wholly irrelevant in  the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act. The argument that the deceased had  left behind only one legal representative the deduction must be half is needless attempt to carve a new innovation by the insurer when the settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 admits of only 1/3 rd deduction for the number of claimants between 1 to 3. The deduction applied was therefore appropriate. The age of the claimant was 43 years at the time of evidence. There was no room to suspect that the age was taken by the Tribunal as 40 years for the deceased at the time of accident was wrong. The case had been filed in the year 2011 and disposed of after two years and for an age between 36 to 45 the multiplier adopted was appropriate. Even an argument that the income could not have been taken as Rs. 5400/ - is off the mark since in a recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.(2011) 113 SCC 236 the Court held that even an income taken as 4500/ - for an ordinary collie cannot be said to be high. In this case the over all compensation assessed for death of a male aged 40 years for a wife at Rs.6,68,000/ - is appropriate and just and the attempt of the insurer to assail the award is unfortunate and a needless waste of time of the Court.
(3.) THE appeal is dismissed.;