Judgment :- Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- for the death of deceased Vijayalakshmi, State Transport Corporation (STC) has preferred this Appeal. 2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- The deceased Vijayalakshmi, Tailor by profession, was earning Rs.2000/- p.m. On 19. 99, when she was proceeding to Udaya Devan Kadu to Nagapattinam, since there was a road roko at Keelaiyur, she was proceeding from Tiruthuraipoondi to Nagapattinam. When she was standing near Murugaiyyan fish shop, the Respondents bus bearing Regn. No. TN 49 N 0408 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Vijayalakshmi and ran over her hip. Immediately, she was admitted for treatment at Thiruthuraipooni Government Hospital and referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital where she succumbed to injuries. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, parents of the deceased Vijayalakshmi filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 3. Opposing the claim, STC filed counter stating that the driver, who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was an experienced driver and he was driven the bus slowly and carefully near Kachanam bus stop. The bus stopped for boarding and alighting passengers and after getting signal from the conductor, the driver moved the bus at a lower gear and at that time without noticing the on coming bus, the deceased suddenly crossed the road. The driver applied sudden brake and swerved to the right side to avoid the accident. However, the deceased knocked against the front left side and sustained injuries. Since the accident was not due to negligent driving of the bus driver, STC is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and eye witness was examined as P.W. 2. Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of Respondent, conductor of the bus was examined as R.W. 1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the STC bus driver and held that the Appellant Corporation is liable to pay compensation. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/-and Rs.8000/- p.a. and applying multiplier 18, the Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,24,000/-. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/-and Rs.8000/- p.a. and applying multiplier 18, the Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,24,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the Tribunal has calculated Rs.2,16,000/- for loss of dependency. Adding conventional damages for medical expenses, loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-. .5. Challenging the amount awarded by the Tribunal, learned counsel for STC has submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier at 18 and monthly income at Rs.2300/-. It was further submitted that the deceased being 26 years and parents aged 58 and 52 years, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 18. Learned counsel for the Appellant – STC forcibly contended that multiplier 18 adopted by the Tribunal appears to be on the higher side. It was further submitted that based on the age of the parents, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier somewhere between 8 – 11. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with. Learned counsel for the respondents/Claimants further submitted that the deceased was working as a tailor and she was getting more than Rs.2500/- p.m. and while so, the Tribunal has fixed very low monthly income of Rs.1500/- p.m. and if we take correct monthly income, the amount of compensation seem to be reasonable one. 7. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts such as, as to how the accident had occurred and who is responsible for the accident and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reasons that the Tribunal has recorded findings on these facts in favour of the Claimant. Secondly, the above aspects are not under serious challenge. .8. Only the quantum of compensation is in dispute. The deceased Vijalakshmi aged about 26 years was a Tailor by profession. In the petition, it is stated that she was earning Rs.2500/- p.m. P.W. 1 has also stated that the deceased would be earning not less than Rs.100/- per day. The deceased, who was working as a tailor, had future prospects of earning higher income. The deceased Vijalakshmi aged about 26 years was a Tailor by profession. In the petition, it is stated that she was earning Rs.2500/- p.m. P.W. 1 has also stated that the deceased would be earning not less than Rs.100/- per day. The deceased, who was working as a tailor, had future prospects of earning higher income. While so, without keeping in view the future prospects of income, the Tribunal has taken very low monthly income of Rs.1500/- p.m. As the deceased was aged 26 years, based on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has selected multiplier 18. The choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or the claimants and whichever is higher has to be taken. The selection of multiplier cannot always depend on the age of the deceased where the dependents are parents, then, the age of the younger of the parents will determine the multiplier. In this case, the first claimant is aged 58 years and the second claimant is aged 52 years. Based on the age of the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier 11. But the Tribunal has applied multiplier 18. Merely because, the Tribunal has applied higher multiplier 18, it cannot be said that the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 9. In 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) (General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas), the Supreme Court has held that when the deceased was in the age group of 21 to 25, multiplier of 18 could be adopted. In 2004 ACJ 53 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay V. Laxman Iyer and anr.) where father and mother were claimants and deceased was aged 18 and father and mother were aged 47 and 43 respectively. Apex court adopted multiplier of 10, fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-. In 2005 (12) SCC 190 (Kanhaiyalal Kataria and Ors. V. Mukul Chaturvedi and Ors.) deceased being 32 years old, the Supreme Court changed multiplier to 17 on the basis of indication in Schedule II, instead of 16 taken by the Tribunal. 10. It is well settled that selection of multiplier cannot always depend on the age of the deceased where the dependents are parents, then the age of the younger of the parents will determine the multiplier. 10. It is well settled that selection of multiplier cannot always depend on the age of the deceased where the dependents are parents, then the age of the younger of the parents will determine the multiplier. Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court, in my considered view, the Tribunal could have adopted multiplier 11 based on the age of the second claimant. But the quantum of compensation cannot the reduced on the ground that the Tribunal has adopted a higher multiplier. 11. It is well settled that while applying multiplier method and calculating multiplicand, future prospects and advancement of life and career should also be taken into account to augument the multiplicand. At the time of the accident, the deceased Vijayalakshmi was working as Tailor. Even by strict standard of income, the deceased being qualified Tailor, the Tribunal ought to have kept in view the future prospects of income of the deceased. Without keeping in view the future prospects of the deceased, the Tribunal has calculated monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-. If we take the income of the deceased at Rs.2400/- p.m., and after deducting 1/3 rd for her personal expenses, the deceased would have contributed Rs.1600/-p.m. to her parents. If multiplier 11 is adopted, loss of dependency would be Rs.2,11,200/-. (Rs.1600 x 12 x 11=Rs.2,11,200/-) .12. Insofar as the conventional damages, the Tribunal appears to have adopted a very conservative approach in awarding only Rs.20,000/-for loss of love and affection, medical expenses, extra nourishment, funeral expenses etc. It is relevant to note that the deceased had taken treatment as inpatient for more than 45 days. The mental agony and suffering of the parents during such time cannot be lost sight of. In my considered view, if we add the conventional damages to the loss of dependency i.e. Rs.2,11,200/-, it would be Rs.2,31,200/-whereas, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,36,000/-. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be higher or excessive. 13. For the forgoing reasons, in my considered view, the compensation amount of Rs.2,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Is just and reasonable and the same need not be interfered with. 14. In the result, The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Nagapattinam, dated 11. 2001 in MCOP No. 34 of 2001 is confirmed and the C.M.A. is dismissed. 14. In the result, The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Nagapattinam, dated 11. 2001 in MCOP No. 34 of 2001 is confirmed and the C.M.A. is dismissed. The Respondents/ Claimants have withdrawn part of the compensation amount. The Respondents/ Claimants are entitled to withdraw balance amount along with accrued interest on necessary Application being filed before the Tribunal. There is no order as to costs in this Appeal.