Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-This misc. appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 24.01.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 161/1990 by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur awarding compensation to the claimant-appellants a sum of Rs. 60,000/-with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.02.1990 Abbas Ali and his friend Siraj Ali were going via Gulab Bagh to Jawahar Nagar in the evening, when a truck bearing Registration No. HNU-4982 came from behind and dashed into them. The Truck No. HNU-4982 was being driven by Mohammed Rashid rashly and negligently, as a result that Siraj Ali died on the spot and Abbas Ali got his right leg fractured and sustained bodily injuries. At the time of accident, the Truck No. HNU 4982 was insured with Respondent No. 3. The owner of the truck is Respondent No. 2 3. According to Claim Case No. 161/1990, with regard to accidental death of Siraj Ali it was stated that at the time of accident, he was 20 years old and was working as Salesman. He was earning Rs. 800/-per month. It was further stated that in addition to this, he used to make Rakhi at his house during morning and evening hours, by which, he was earning Rs. 200/-per month. The deceased was the sole earning member of his family. The claimant-appellants are the father and mother of the deceased Siraj Ali. It was stated that they were fully dependent on him. The deceased was healthy. If he had not died, he would have earned Rs. 4,80,000/-in his life. The parents of the deceased were not deprived of that amount. They also suffered shock and mental agony. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 5,30,000/-was claimed as compensation. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 adopted the reply filed by Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. Respondent No. 3, in its reply, denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the deceased was crossing the road carelessly and the accident had occurred due to his own negligence. In this way, they were not responsible for compensation. 5. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 adopted the reply filed by Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. Respondent No. 3, in its reply, denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the deceased was crossing the road carelessly and the accident had occurred due to his own negligence. In this way, they were not responsible for compensation. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed with regard to Claim Petition No. 161/1990: Þ1- vk;k fnukad 19-02-1990 dks Jh fljkt vyh dh e`R;q fo- u- 1 Jh eksgEen jkhn ds }kjk okgu ua-,p-,u-;w- 4982 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k dkfjr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZe eascrkbZ xbZ jkf k #i;k 5]30]000@& ;k vU; dksbZ jkf k izfrdj esa foi{khd.k ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gka rks fdruh o fdl fdl ls\ 3- vk;k chek dEiuh ds }kjk tokc nkos esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;kas ds vk/kkj ij chek dEiuh dk dksbZ nkf ;Ro ugha gS\ 4- nknjlh\ß 6. At the trial, Claim Petition No. 160/909 with regard to injured Abbas Ali and Claim Petition No. 161/909 with regard to Siraj Ali were tried together, four witnesses were examined AW 1 Fakruddin, AW 2 Aahsan Ali, AW 3 Abbas Ali and AW 4 Munavar Hussain. On behalf of appellants, Exhibit-1 First Information Report, Exhibit-2 Final Report given by the police, Exhibit-3 notice to owner of the vehicle, Exhibit-4 Post-mortem Report, all the certified copies of the criminal case registered against the driver of the truck-Respondent No. 1, and Exhibit-5 Salary certificate were produced and exhibited. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HNU 4982 by driver-Mohd. Rashid and after considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal determined lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-and passed an Award in favour of the claimant-appellants. 8. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of award dated 24.01.1992, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. 60,000/-and passed an Award in favour of the claimant-appellants. 8. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of award dated 24.01.1992, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. During the course of argument, it was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a meagre amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-inclusive of the amount of Rs. 25,000/-granted under No Fault Liability in an accidental death case of a 20 years old who was the only bread earning member of the family. The claimants are father and mother who were fully dependent on him. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider bright further prospects of the deceased. It was contended that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/-as compensation but no basis has been discussed. The learned Tribunal has not applied multiplier method in calculating the loss of dependency. It was submitted that the multiplier method is a scientific method. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation with regard to mental shock and agony. The claimant-appellants are mother and father of the deceased. Father is not earning because of illness and the mother is a house-hold lady. They were fully dependent on the deceased as the deceased was the sole earning male member of the family. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal should have considered this aspect. The learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance in support of her contentions on the following authorities; Supe Dei & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2002 ACJ 1166(SC), in which, it was held that multiplier method can be taken as guide-line while determining the compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 1994 ACJ 01 with reference to future prospects of life. On the above submissions, it was prayed that the compensation be modified and enhanced. 11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions placed by the appellants side and urged that the learned Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has determined proper and just compensation of Rs. 60,000/-that should be maintained. On the above submissions, it was prayed that the compensation be modified and enhanced. 11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions placed by the appellants side and urged that the learned Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has determined proper and just compensation of Rs. 60,000/-that should be maintained. It was further contended that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. After his marriage, he was to maintain his wife and children. In that position it was not possible to pay more than 1/3rd amount of his earning to the parents. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the principles laid down in the authority Donat Louis Machado & Ors. vs. L. Ravindra & Ors., reported in 1999 ACJ 1400. It was also contended that the claimants father and mother are aged persons. It was urged that the learned Tribunal while determining compensation, was also keeping these aspect in mind. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the authorities (1) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Shri Laxman Iyer & Anr., reported in 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 40 and (2) Ghanchand Jain & Anr. vs. Parmanand & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 435. On the above submission, it was prayed that the award does not need any interference and the appeal be dismissed. 12. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and the authorities cited by them. The finding on issue No. 1 is based on the statement of the witness and record. The learned Tribunal after discussing the material, came to a positive conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. HNU 4982 and at that time, the bus was being driven by Respondent No. 1. The learned Tribunal has considered the statement of the injured eye-witness and Final Report Exhibit-2 prepared by the police after investigation. The findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is to be maintained. With regard to issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal while assessing the loss of dependency has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 60,000/-to the claimants. No reasons and basis have been given. The findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is to be maintained. With regard to issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal while assessing the loss of dependency has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 60,000/-to the claimants. No reasons and basis have been given. The learned Tribunal should have given sound reasons for computing the amount of compensation otherwise the award in this respect is non-explanatory. AW 1 Fakruddin stated that his son was earning Rs. 800/-per month and he used to make "Rakhi" in the evening hours, by which, he was earning Rs. 200/-per month. On the basis of the above mentioned material, the learned Tribunal was in a position to ascertain the loss of dependency suffered by the claimants due to untimely accidental death of their son. In computing the compensation and loss of dependency, the multiplier method is the most scientific method even in a claim made under Section 166 of the M.V. Act as it ensures payment of just compensation and it brings uniformity and certainty to the award the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants also support this contention. The learned Tribunal has not applied multiplier method and awarded a meagre amount. In this way, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal requires modification. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in case of marriage in further, he would have maintained his family but in this case, the deceased was the only earning male member of the family. His father was jobless and stated to be ill. The mother is house hold wife. At the time of accident, the deceased was living with them and he was 20 years old. The age of the father is 45 years and mother is 35 years. In these circumstances, the contentions are not tenable and the authorities cited by them do not help. It was stated by the father of the deceased that at the time of accident, the deceased was employed as Salesman at Bags Corner getting a salary of Rs. 800/-per month and he was earning Rs. 200/-per month by preparing "Rakhi" at his house. The other witnesses also supported this version. In my opinion, looking to the age and job of the deceased, there were bright further prospects, therefore, the monthly average of income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 800/-per month and he was earning Rs. 200/-per month by preparing "Rakhi" at his house. The other witnesses also supported this version. In my opinion, looking to the age and job of the deceased, there were bright further prospects, therefore, the monthly average of income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 1,500/-per month and on that basis deducting 1/3rd amount, which he would have spent on himself , the remaining portion of Rs. 1,000/-per month he would have given to the claimants. Looking to the age of the deceased and the claimants, it is just and proper that the multiplier of 15 be applied and in this way, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 1,80,000/-and considering to the facts that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, an amount of Rs. 20,000/-is just and proper compensation for shock and mental agony suffered by them. Thus, the total compensation is enhanced by Rs. 60,000/-to 2,00,000/-inclusive of amount awarded under No Fault Liability. The claimants are entitled to recovery, this amount. Further they are entitled to receive interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-from the date of application to the date of realisation. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation award as above in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur after deducting any amount paid earlier by them within one month from the date of this order failing which the due amount will be recoverable jointly and severally from the respondents. On depositing the amount in the Tribunal, 50% of the enhanced amount will be deposited in the Nationalised Bank or in the Government Scheme for three years. Rest amount will be paid to the claimants. No order as to costs. 13. With the above observations, the Judgment and award dated 24.01.1992 is affirmed. The appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.