JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:-This is an appeal directed against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 16.12.2004. 2. Mahabir Singh aged 18 years lost his life in a vehicular accident which took place on 4th January, 2000. 3. The claim petition was preferred by the appellants who are the parents of the deceased. 4. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month and the dependency at Rs. 1000/- per month. Multiplier of 11 was applied by adopting the reasoning that the deceased would have got married after some time and would not have contributed any income to his parents thereafter. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for the funeral expenses. 5. In this view of the matter, compensation worked out as Rs.1,42,000/- which was directed to be paid to the appellants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. 6. Dis-satisfied with the award of the Tribunal the appellants have filed the present appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded was grossly inadequate. The deceased was a young boy of 18 years and being young would have supported his parents and the Tribunal ought to have taken these factors into consideration while determining the amount of compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month which has been assessed by the Tribunal is just and adequate and there is nothing wrong in the reasoning of the Tribunal as the deceased would have got married after some time. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal was sought to be justified. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the award. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘Manju Devi & another versus Musafir Paswan & another’ 2005 ACJ 99 while assessing the compenation in case of death of a boy aged 13 years, assessed his notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 10. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 18 years and therefore, his propensity to earn would be slightly more than that of a boy aged 13 years. 15,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 10. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 18 years and therefore, his propensity to earn would be slightly more than that of a boy aged 13 years. The notional income is therefore rightly assessed as Rs. 3000/- per month. However, dependency is wrong. By applying the normal cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses, dependency works out to be Rs. 2000/- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per annum (2000 x 12). Multiplier of 11 is jut and appropriate in the given set of circumstances. The compensation in this manner comes to Rs.2,64,000/-. Amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses is just and adequate and does not warrant any interference. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of loss of love and affection. The deceased was a young boy of 18 years. In the given set of circumstances, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,24,000/-. 11. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay i.e. 551 days in filing the appeal as directed vide order dated 28.8.2008 of this Court. 12. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. --------------