Judgment :- This appeal is filed at the instance of the third respondent Insurance Company before the tribunal against the award dated 110. 2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.858 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I), Coimbatore. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased R.Samaya Anand, aged 14 at the time of accident and was a student filed the Original Petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Tribunal after having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record had passed an award of Rs.3,49,000/- - with interest at 9% p.a. as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- 3. The case of the parties before the tribunal in brief is as follows:- .(a) According to the claimants when their son Samaya Anand was riding his bicycle from west to east in maruthamalai Road, near Perumal Koil Bus Stop, a lorry bearing Regn. No. TNC 700 belonging to the 4th respondent, driven by its driver, the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side, knocked down the deceased and ran over him. The deceased died on the spot. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 4th respondent which was insured with the appellant insurance corporation. Hence, the parents of the deceased filed the petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. .(b) The appellant insurance company filed their counter resisting the claim and contending that the accident was due to the carelessness of the deceased only. In any event the quantum of compensation is highly excessive and the claim is liable to be dismissed. 4. None appears for the respondents 1 and 2 who are claimants before the tribunal. Similarly, the respondents 3 and 4 also did not enter their appearance either in person or through their counsel and they remained ex parte even before the tribunal. 5. This appeal is preferred by the aggrieved Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation. There is no appeal or cross objection from the claimants. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was aged about 14 years and he was a student at the time of the accident. 5. This appeal is preferred by the aggrieved Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation. There is no appeal or cross objection from the claimants. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was aged about 14 years and he was a student at the time of the accident. The deceased was a non earning bachelor and therefore, the tribunal ought to have taken a sum of Rs.15,000/-as annual dependency as per Schedule II to Section 163(A) of the M.V.Act. Further, the tribunal ought to have considered the age of the mother of the deceased, whereas the tribunal adopted multiplier 18 taking into account of the age of the deceased which is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007 ACC 10 SC Vol-I. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would on the other hand submit that the tribunal had rightly taken into account the average income and passed a suitable award granting a sum of Rs.3,24,000/-towards loss of dependency; a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection due to the death of the only son of the petitioners and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses in all a sum of Rs.3,49,000/- which calls for no interference. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company questioned the award of Rs.3,24,000/- granted under the head of loss of dependency. The contention of the learned counsel is that the deceased was being a student and non earning bachelor, the proper multiplier could be considered in terms of the age of the mother of the deceased. It is not disputed that the age of the mother of the deceased was 41 at the time of accident. In Maharashtra State Road Transports Corporation v. Lalnipuii (2007 ACC 10 SC) it has been held that "It is fairy a settled position in law that while parents are the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is the age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier to be adopted. On that score it is clear that the Tribunals assessment of the quantum of Award was incorrect." 9. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. On that score it is clear that the Tribunals assessment of the quantum of Award was incorrect." 9. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt the deceased was a student and was a non earning bachelor. Therefore, notional income of a sum of Rs.15,000/- could be taken as annual dependency as per Schedule II to Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act. In the light of the decision of Apex Court and the facts and circumstances in the present case, I am of the considered view that the proper multiplier for arriving at a just and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency would be 15. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/-could be awarded to the petitioners towards loss of dependency. No doubt, the petitioners lost their only son in the road accident and they have been deprived of happiness, which cannot be compensated at any cost. Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances, in my considered view, a sum of Rs.10,000/-each should be awarded to the petitioners towards loss of love and affection. The award of sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses does not require any modification. Accordingly, the award passed by the tribunal granting a sum of Rs.3,49,000/-as compensation stand reduced to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The head-wise compensation are furnished below for easy reference:- 10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,49,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-and out of the compensation the 1st respondent is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- and the 2nd respondent is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-with proportionate accrued interest and in other respects the award passed by the tribunal shall stand maintained. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire compensation has been deposited with interest before the tribunal and the petitioners were permitted by this Court to withdraw the 50% of the same. Since the award has been reduced, the petitioners are entitled to receive their respective remaining share with proportionate interest and the amount deposited by the appellant Transport Corporation in excess to the award passed in this appeal is ordered to be refunded. The order of the tribunal in other respects shall stand maintained. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective cost in this appeal.