Judgment :- This appeal is preferred by United India Insurance against the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 30.06.2005 passed in O.P.No.185 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Kancheepuram, challenging the award only in respect of quantum of compensation and in particular, the multiplier adopted. 2. The finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence pursuant to the accident in question and the liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation is not in dispute. 3. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years, working as a Supervisor, earning Rs. 3,900/- per month. The mother and father of the deceased, who are the claimants are aged 37 and 46 years, respectively. The Tribunal accepted the income and based on the age of the claimants, namely, father and mother of the deceased, adopted ‘17’ multiplier and awarded a sum of 5,30,400/- towards loss of income. In addition to the above, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.67,800/- on various heads, which is not objected to by the Counsel for appellant. 4. The only contention now urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2004 (2) L.W. 15 in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shree Lakshmana Iyer and Another is that, in respect of bachelor earning member, the multiplier to be adopted will be ‘10’ and the Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplier. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied on a later decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Others to State that the Apex Court has confirmed the award of the Tribunal, adopting ‘12’ multiplier in respect of bachelor earning member. Learned Counsel pleaded that in the present case, considering the age of the mother and father and the age of the deceased, the higher multiplier of ‘12’ as adopted in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 should be adopted. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. In the case of 2004 (2) L.W. 15 (The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shree Lakshmana Iyer & Another), the deceased was aged about 18 years and he was a student. In the case of 2006 AIR SCW 1116 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. In the case of 2004 (2) L.W. 15 (The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shree Lakshmana Iyer & Another), the deceased was aged about 18 years and he was a student. In the case of 2006 AIR SCW 1116 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta an Others), the deceased was a bachelor, aged 24 years and he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. 7. The facts of the instant case are comparable to the decision reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1116 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Others). The order of the Tribunal shall stand modified only in respect of loss of income to the family, which works out to Rs.3,74,400/- (Rs. 390 x 1/3 x 12 x 12 ). The award under other heads are confirmed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered with the modification indicated above. No costs.