JUDGEMENT Sanjay Karol, J:- On 21st December, 2000 Motorcycle bearing No.HP-39A-1040 while being driven by its owner Shri Ankaj Kumar alongwith Shri Pardeep Kumar, pillion rider, met with an accident at Village Manajhgran, with truck bearing No.HP-48-6465. Both the riders fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. Pardeep Kumar, pillion rider, suffered fatal injuries and died on the place of accident. 2. Smt. Sudarshana Devi, mother of deceased Pardeep Kumar, filed a Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was registered as Claim Petition No.13-K/2005/03 in the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to Tribunal). The same was decided by the Tribunal on 10 January, 2006. The claimant therein was awarded a sum of Rs. 6,42,000. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal held that (i) petitioner, a widow is aged 40 years; (ii) the age of the deceased was about 20 years at the time of accident having been born on 27th January, 1980; (iii) the deceased was working as a Carpenter and also a blacksmith; (iv) the income from work of blacksmith was unsubstantiated, whereas the income as a carpenter @ Rs.150/- per day was taken to be Rs.4500/- per month and (v) multiplier of 17 applied to determine the compensation of Rs. 6,12,000/- apart from the compensation for love and affection and other entitlements. 3. The liability was fastened upon the Insurer i.e. Oriental Insurance Company, which has preferred the present writ petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company has submitted that the award is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the same is contrary to the decisions rendered by the Courts is Donat Lousi Machado and others vs. L. Ravindra and others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 633 and Chran Singh vs. Joginder Singh and another, reported in 2002(1) Sim.L.C. 409, wherein it has been held that in case of unmarried son only 1/3^ of his income is to be considered while considering dependency of the claimant. Contrary to the ratio as laid in the judgments in the instant case the income considered for the purpose of dependency is 2/3rd of Rs. 4500/-. He further argued that multiplier of 17 is on the higher side. . . . 5. Contrary to the ratio as laid in the judgments in the instant case the income considered for the purpose of dependency is 2/3rd of Rs. 4500/-. He further argued that multiplier of 17 is on the higher side. . . . 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the award needs to be modified keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the judgments referred to hereinabove. 6. While deciding the Claim Petition, the Tribunal has held the total income of the deceased to be Rs. 4500/- per month. 1/3rd of the same has been deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased leaving the remaining for the dependants. Thus, to of Rs.4500/- the Tribunal held that Rs.1500/- would have been spent by the deceased and the mother of the deceased being the only heir and totally dependent upon him would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3000/-. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 22 years 11 months at the time of filing the Claim petition applied the multiplier of 17. 7. In Donat Louis Machdo (supra), the Supreme Court held that the parents and the unmarried sister dependant upon the deceased would have got atleast 1/3Id amount as the remaining 2/3rd would have been spent by the deceased on himself and his family, which he may have raised. The income of unmarried son, for the purposes of determining the dependency of the parents, has to be 1/3rd of his total income as has also been held by this Court in Charan Singh (supra). 8. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the Tribunal has seriously erred in calculating income of the deceased for .the purposes of determining the claimants entitlement for compensation. The same is accordingly recalculated. From the total income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month, only 1/3rd of the same is to be determined for the purposes of calculating the compensation payable to the mother of the deceased. 9. On the question of multiplier where the deceased at the time of accident was of about 33 years of age, the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana (Smt. And others, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 538, has applied the multiplier of13. 10. 9. On the question of multiplier where the deceased at the time of accident was of about 33 years of age, the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana (Smt. And others, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 538, has applied the multiplier of13. 10. In my view the multiplier of 17 in the present case is on the higher side and accordingly. I reduce the multiplier from 17 to 14. Accordingly, the claimant-respondent No.2 is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2, 52,000/- (Rs.1500 x 12 x 4) in stand of Rs. 6, 12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award dated 10th January, 2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent the remaining part of the award shall remain intact.