Judgment :- (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and decree, dated14.05.1998, made in MCOP No.130 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli.) P.K. Misra, J Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The claimants have filed this appeal claiming higher compensation. The parents and the sisters of the deceased are the claimants. The death occurred on 26.06.1992. It has been found by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle belonged to the third respondent, insured with the fourth respondent Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after calculating Rs.2000/- as the monthly dependancy, applied multiplier of 5 and allowing certain other sums under other heads, has passed an award for a sum of Rs.1,38,000/-. 3. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal has committed illegality in applying the multiplier of 5. It is submitted that keeping in view the age of the mother, at the time of the death of her son, atleast the multiplier of 12 should have been applied. It is further submitted that the Tribunal should not have rejected the claim of the third appellant who was unmarried at the time of the death of his brother in the accident. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has submitted that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of death and there was every possibility of his getting married and thereafter his contribution to the other members of the family would have decreased. He has submitted that considering all these aspects, the multiplier applied appears to be reasonable. It is further submitted by him, at any rate, as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2004(1) TN MAC (SC) 16 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman Iyer and another), the multiplier at the maximum can be 10 in respect of the claims of the parents. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for both the parties. Even though, in normal course, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court cited above would be applicable and the multiplier 10 could be adopted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we feel a multiplier of 12 would be more appropriate. Even though, in normal course, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court cited above would be applicable and the multiplier 10 could be adopted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we feel a multiplier of 12 would be more appropriate. In the case before the Supreme Court, the claim petition had been filed by the parents only, who had their own source of earning being educated and employed. In the present case, admittedly, apart from the unemployed parents two unmarried sisters were also the claimants. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the deceased alone was the sole bread winner of the family, he would have taken care of the unmarried sisters atleast till their marriage and, therefore, the claim of the unmarried sisters is also required to be taken into consideration. Having regard to all these aspects, we feel that a multiplier of 12 would be more appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Applying multiplier 12, an additional amount of Rs.1,68,000/- is payable by the fourth respondent. 6. Accordingly, we direct that in addition to the amount already directed to be paid by the Tribunal, a further sum of Rs.1,68,000/- is required to be paid by the fourth respondent. The additional sum of Rs.1,68,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. Out of this enhanced amount, the first appellant/father is entitled to receive Rs.40,000/-, the second appellant/mother would be paid Rs.60,000/-, the third appellant/sister would get Rs.40,000/- and the fourth appellant/sister shall receive Rs.28,000/-. 7. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.