ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 12.8.2004 passed by 7th MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 234/03, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that deceased was only daughter of the appellants aged 21 years who was working with Sukhliya Co-operative Society as Office Assistant and was drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal of which breakup is as under: Loss of dependency : Rs. 1,44,000/- Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/- Loss of funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that income of Rs. 3,000/was found proved by the learned Tribunal, but the dependency was wrongly assessed @ Rs. 1,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 12 a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- has been awarded which is not correct. It is submitted that dependency ought to have been assessed @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. Since, the age of the deceased was 21 years, therefore, in view of second schedule of section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied, which has wrongly been applied of 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on another heads also, the amount awarded is at lower side. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Ram Singh v. Amrit Lal Devangan reported in [1998 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 149 = 1998 ACJ 1093 ], wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that, "It has to be kept in mind that the deceased was the only issue of the claimants. It is true that the deceased was expected to marry into 'another family. But that does not mean that she would have left her parents unattended and un provided for in old age, in their hour of need." 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that appellant No.1 happens to be father of deceased and was working in co-operative sector. It is true that the deceased was expected to marry into 'another family. But that does not mean that she would have left her parents unattended and un provided for in old age, in their hour of need." 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that appellant No.1 happens to be father of deceased and was working in co-operative sector. Since deceased was daughter of 21 years of the appellants, therefore, in future she would have been married and therefore, appellants are not entitled for loss of dependency. It is also submitted that it is not necessary that in every case 2/3rd of the dependency has to be assessed. Reliance has been placed on a decision in the matter of Fakeerappa and another v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and others reported in 2004 ACJ 699 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "what would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction." 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that from the evidence on record it is proved that deceased passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1995 with third division and in the year 2002, when accident took place she appeared as private candidate in BA 1st year Examination. It is submitted that looking to her academic qualification, it is not possible that deceased was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since appellant No.1 is also earning member, therefore, appellants are not entitled for any amount on account of loss of dependency. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is neither any appeal nor any cross objection on behalf of respondent No.3, therefore, it cannot be examined that amount awarded towards loss of dependency is at higher side. 9. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record 1/3 amount of dependency which has been assessed by the learned Tribunal out of the income of the deceased appears to be on lower side. Appellants are entitled for loss of dependency @ 50% of the amount which was being earned by deceased Nitu. 10. 9. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record 1/3 amount of dependency which has been assessed by the learned Tribunal out of the income of the deceased appears to be on lower side. Appellants are entitled for loss of dependency @ 50% of the amount which was being earned by deceased Nitu. 10. Looking to the age of the daughter of the appellants which was 21 years and also looking to the age of the appellants which are 42 and 4 years respectively, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied which has been wrongly applied as 12. In view of this award deserves to b modified. 11. Appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- towards loss of dependency instead of Rs. 1,44,000/-, after applying multiplier of 15 an after assessing the dependency @ 50% of the income of deceased Nitu. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 17,000/- towards other head as already awarded by learned Tribunal. Total amount comes to Rs. 2,87,000/- instead of Rs. 1,61,000/-. Enhanced amount shall carry interes @ 6% per annum. With the aforesaid modifications, appeal stands disposed of.