Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the parents for enhancement of compensation on account of death of bhumika aged 26 years. She was an assistant Professor. She met with an accident on 8. 8. 2005 caused by truck No. MBD 8437 driven by Satya Prakash, owned by one bhikam Singh and insured with Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. A report was lodged and offence was registered against the driver under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,500 per month. Total compensation of Rs. 65,50,000 was claimed. ( 2. ) THE owner and driver in the written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition. Involvement of the truck in question was denied. False report was lodged against the driver. Vehicle was insured. The driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. ( 3. ) THE insurer in the written statement contended that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as such denied its liability to make payment of compensation. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,720 per month. Dependency has been worked out at Rs. 4,240 per month. Multiplier of 10 has been applied. Compensation of rs. 5,08,800 was awarded along with 6 per cent interest. ( 5. ) MR. Dinesh Koushal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded. Appropriate multiplier has not been applied considering the age of parents to be 45 and 60 years. Multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied as the age of the mother was 45 years. 2/3rd deduction has been made towards self expenditure, that was not permissible as per the Second Schedule, only 1/3rd amount should have been deducted. ( 6. ) MR. Rakesh Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 insurer has submitted that adequate compensation has been awarded. No case for its further enhancement is made out. ( 7. ) FIRST question for consideration is the income of the deceased to be taken for consideration for the purpose of monthly salary. Rs. 12,720 was the gross salary inclusive of HRA of Rs. 320, that is required to be deducted. We take into consideration the basic salary at Rs. 8,000 and dearness allowance of Rs. ( 7. ) FIRST question for consideration is the income of the deceased to be taken for consideration for the purpose of monthly salary. Rs. 12,720 was the gross salary inclusive of HRA of Rs. 320, that is required to be deducted. We take into consideration the basic salary at Rs. 8,000 and dearness allowance of Rs. 4,400 as that formed part of the salary. Thus, the monthly salary is taken at Rs. 12,400 instead of Rs. 12,720 adopted by the Tribunal. HRA ought to have been deducted. Such an allowance did not form part of salary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to work out the dependency at 50 per cent instead of 1/3rd as in old age of parents the daughter supports their parents. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,200 per month, annual loss comes to Rs. 74,400. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we apply multiplier of 13. Thus, the compensation will come to Rs. 74,400 x 13 = Rs. 9,67,200. In addition, a sum of Rs. 20,000 is awarded on account of other customary heads. Thus, the total compensation will come to rs. 9,87,200 (rupees nine lakh eighty-seven thousand two hundred ). The amount be paid within a period of two months. ( 8. ) RESULTANTLY, appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.