Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. In a road accident dated 31.3.1993, Chandradeep Das, 38 years old son of the appellant died. 2. According to the claimant-appellant, while returning home from Hajipur Station chawk near Satkar Hotel, Ramashish chawk, his son was dashed and crushed by a jeep bearing registration No. BHX 360, which was being driven rashly and negligently. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 3. Accordingly claim case No. 14 of 1993 was filed and a sum of Rs. 10,25,000.00 was claimed as compensation. 4. Both the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company appeared in the claim case and filed separate written statement and contested it. 5. By the impugned judgment and award the tribunal found that the deceased was 38 years old and his father was about 64 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was unmarried. The tribunal took contribution to the deceased for the maintenance of his father to the tune of Rs. 250.00 per month and, therefore, the annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 3000.00 . It was multiplied by 7 expected life span of the claimant and the amount came to Rs. 21000.00 . Besides this for loss of son and consortium and love and affection of the deceased a sum of Rs. 7000.00 more was added for loss of mental agony and sufferings a sum of Rs. 2000.00 was allowed for performing the last rites and Shradh of the deceased Rs. 3000.00 was allowed. Thus the total amount of compensation was calculated at Rs. 38,000.00 with interest at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum from the date of claim application till payment. Besides a lump sum cost of Rs. 500.00 payable to the claimant. 6. The tribunal directed the insurer i.e. the Original Insurance Company Ltd. to pay the entire compensation. 7. Mr. Shyam Sunder Sinha Shyam, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the tribunal erred in using the multiplicant of 7 only in the present case. 8. It is well settled that the age of the dependent of the deceased was very much relevant for the purpose of applying an appropriate multiplicant. In the present case the claimant was 64 years old and his life expentency was rightly calculated by the tribunal to be 7 years more. 9. 8. It is well settled that the age of the dependent of the deceased was very much relevant for the purpose of applying an appropriate multiplicant. In the present case the claimant was 64 years old and his life expentency was rightly calculated by the tribunal to be 7 years more. 9. In such situation, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.