Judgment Barin Ghosh and Madhavendra Saran JJ. 1. An unfortunate accident took place on 1st March, 1991, when Maya Shanker Prasad, who was driving a Scooter, and his pillion rider, Arvind Kumar Verma, died. The accident was allegedly caused due to rash and negligent act of one Sri Sunil Thakur, who was driving a Rajdoot Motor Cycle. The Motor Cycle as well as the Scooter were insured by the appellant. The wife and the children of Maya Shanker Prasad filed Claim Case no. 50 of 1991 and parents of Arvind Kumar Verma filed Claim Case no. 51 of 1991. Both these Claim Cases were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common award dated 14th June, 1995. In Claim Case no. 50 of 1991 a sum of Rs. 4,80,000.00 was awarded as compensation; whereas in Claim Case no. 51 of 1991 a sum of Rs. 3,35,000.00 was awarded as compensation. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said common award and the appeal was allowed to the extent as stated below. The learned appellate court found that undisputedly monthly income of Maya Shanker Prasad was Rs. 5,000.00 and that of Arvind Kumar Verma was Rs. 3,000/-. The appellate court deducted one third of such monthly income on account of personal expenses of the deceased persons and applied multiplier of ten in relation to Maya Shanker Prasad and on the basis thereof awarded compensation payable to the widow and children of Maya Shankar Prasad at Rs. 4,00,000.00 but in relation to Arvind Kumar Verma applied the multiplier of twelve and awarded a compensation to the parents of Arvind Kumar Verma at Rs. 2,88,000/-. 2. In the instant Letters Patent Appeal the appellant is contending that having regard to what has been provided in the second schedule inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by sec. 163A thereof, which came into operation prior to the date of the Award made by the Tribunal, instead of twelve the multiplier should have been five in the case of Arvind Kumar Verma. 3. 163A thereof, which came into operation prior to the date of the Award made by the Tribunal, instead of twelve the multiplier should have been five in the case of Arvind Kumar Verma. 3. It is now well settled in law by reason of various judgments rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the multiplier as provided for in the second schedule will apply on the basis of the age of the victim provided any of the claimants is younger to the victim, but in the event the claimants are not younger to the victim then the age of the junior most of the claimants should be taken note of in order to ascertain the correct multiplier applicable. 4. In as much as the mother of Arvind Kumar Verma was 65 years old at the time of death of her son and in as much as she was the junior most of the claimants, for the purpose of determining multiplier, her age should have been taken note of. If that is taken note of then the multiplier in terms of second schedule to, the Act would be five. 5. In those circumstances, there being no dispute that after deducting one third on account of personal expenses of the victim, Arvind Kumar Verma, compensation in Claim Case no. 51 of 1991 would have been Rs, 24,000.00 X 5= Rs. 1,20,000/-along with a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 on ac count of funeral expenses and an additional sum of Rs. 2,500.00 on account of loss of estate plus interest as awarded. 6. We, accordingly, substitute the compensation amount at Rs. 1,24,500/-plus interest as already awarded. 7. To the extent as above, the appeal is allowed.