Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the owner of truck No. PBN-297 against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short the Tribunal) allowing compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 2,01,000/-. 2. The claimant-respondents filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) claiming compensation on account of death of Doctor Surinder Mohan, who was holding a degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines and Surgery. After undergoing internship training for a period of five months, late Dr. Mohan had set up his practice as Ayurvedic Doctor at Village Pandori Bainsan. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Surinder Mohan had advised his patient, Ram Saran, to get himself x-rayed. However, Ram Saran failed to get himself x-rayed. The deceased Surinder Mohan told Ram Saran that he would be going to Gurdaspur on 6th November, 1983 for purchasing medicines and, therefore, he should contact him at Nano Nangal bridge, so that he could be taken to Gurdaspur for x-ray Bridge on 6.11.1983 and picked up Ram Saran from there. He accompanied the deceased Surinder Mohan on his motor-cycle, who proceeded towards Gurdaspur via Ranjit Bagh. When they reached near Baroda Bank Mandi Gurdaspur, truck bearing No. PBN-297 driven by Harbans Singh son of Inder Singh came from the opposite side. It was claimed that the said truck which was being driven rashly and negligently and was coming on the wrong side of the road, hit the motor-cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, Surinder Mohan fell down and received serious injuries. On account of the said accident, Doctor Surinder Mohan became unconscious and was taken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where he was declared brought dead. In this accident, Ram Saran also received some injuries. On the statement of Ram Saran F.I.R. No. 150 of 1983 was recorded at Police Station, Gurdaspur, under Sections 304-A/279 I.P.C. The said truck was owned by M/s Sudarshan Kumar Parshotam Lal and was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Batala. The parents of the deceased i.e. the claimants along with Kumari Rakesh Bala and her other sisters filed a claim application wherein a sum of Rs. 5,72,785/- was claimed. 3. It was claimed that Doctor Surinder Mohan, deceased, used to earn Rs. Ltd. Batala. The parents of the deceased i.e. the claimants along with Kumari Rakesh Bala and her other sisters filed a claim application wherein a sum of Rs. 5,72,785/- was claimed. 3. It was claimed that Doctor Surinder Mohan, deceased, used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month during that period and it was further claimed that he was likely to get a job as Govt. Ayurvedic Doctor in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300/-. The deceased was unmarried and was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and was the only son of his parents. Shri Tirath Ram, father of the deceased, who was a regd. medial practitioner at Samrala claimed that he was to be looked after by the deceased till his death. It was also claimed that unmarried sisters as well as mother along with the father were dependent upon him. It was also alleged that the motor-cycle also got damaged. 4. The claim application was contested by the respondents and it was denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from his profession or that he was likely to get the Government job. The involvement of truck No. PBN-297 was also denied. It was further claimed that Tirath Ram, father of the deceased, who was practicing as Hakim at Samrala, was earning handsome income and was maintaining the family. It was, therefore, claimed that the claimants were not dependent on the deceased - Dr. Surinder Mohan. It was also claimed that the deceased had only a learning licence and, therefore, was not entitled to drive the motor-cycle on the G.T. Road. The respondents also took a stand that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle. 5. The Insurance Company also took a stand that truck No. PBN-297 was not involved in the accident and further that the truck being driven rashly and negligently was also denied. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: 1. Whether Surinder Mohan lost his life as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBN-297 on 6.11.83 by Harbans Singh respondent No. 1? OPA 2. Whether the applicants are the legal heirs and dependents of Surinder Mohan deceased? OPA 3. To what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled? OPA 4. Relief. 6. Whether Surinder Mohan lost his life as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBN-297 on 6.11.83 by Harbans Singh respondent No. 1? OPA 2. Whether the applicants are the legal heirs and dependents of Surinder Mohan deceased? OPA 3. To what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled? OPA 4. Relief. 6. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on issue No. 1 recorded a finding that Doctor Surinder Mohan deceased lost his life as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBN-297 on 6th of November, 1983. The said truck was driven by Harbans Singh, respondent No. 1. 7. On issue No. 2 the learned Tribunal held that the claimants i.e. the parents of the deceased were entitled to compensation only, whereas the other claimants, who are sisters of the deceased were not entitled to any compensation being not dependent on him. 8. On issue No. 3 by taking income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased must have been contributing Rs. 900 to Rs. 1,000/- towards his parents and by applying a multiplier 20 the compensation was assessed at Rs. 2,01,000/-. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- paid as interim compensation was ordered to be deducted. 9. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has only challenged the multiplier at 20 as applied by the learned Tribunal. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that for the purpose of applying the multiplier in the case of the claim by the parents, it is only the age of the parents which is to be taken into consideration and not the age of the deceased. It was further contended that the deceased was likely to get married and resultantly the dependency was likely to be reduced. The learned Tribunal failed to take notice of this important aspect of the matter while assessing compensation. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors., In that case, the deceased was 24 years old whereas the ages of the claimants were stated to be between 45-50 years and the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to apply a multiplier of 12. The facts of the said case are somewhat similar to the present case and it is accordingly held that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 12 while assessing the compensation. However, it may be noticed that the Tribunal erred in assessing the dependency only at Rs. 900/- out of Rs. 2,000/-, which was taken to be the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal, at best, should have allowed the deduction of Rs. 600/- as personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency for the given reasons should have been assessed at Rs. 1,400/- by the learned Tribunal. The compensation, therefore, works out to be Rs. 2,01,600/- which can be said to be just and appropriate compensation and it may be rounded off to Rs. 2,01,000/- (Rs. Two lacs one thousand only) as assessed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 are also upheld though for different reasons. 10. For the reasons stated above, no ground is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal so far as the compensation is concerned. Accordingly, this appeal as well as the cross-objections are hereby dismissed.