( 1 ) THE appellant has, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short), called into question the common judgment and award, inter alia, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 774 of 2002 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch, whereunder the respondent-claimants herein were ordered to be paid Rs. 2,52,440/- with interest @ 9% p. a. and cost by way of compensation. The appeal was pressed only for reducing the amount of compensation only on the grounds that the Tribunal had erroneously assumed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and considered his age for the purpose of multiplier rather than the age of the parents who were the claimants. Learned counsel Ms. Falguni Patel, appearing for the appellant, relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Others [ 2007 ACJ 2816 ] in support of her submission that, where parents were the claimants, the relevant factor for selecting multiplier would be the age of parents. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the facts on record about which there was no controversy, the deceased victim of the motor accident was the son of the claimants and he was serving as conductor in a transport company. In view of his age of 20 years and income of Rs. 2,000/- per month, reduced by one-third towards his personal expenses, Rs. 1,333/- was taken to be the dependency benefit and annual dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 15,996/ -. Applying multiplier of 15, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,39,940/- towards future dependency, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses. As argued by learned counsel Mr. MTM Hakim, appearing for the claimants, there were no rigid rules about percentage of deduction for personal expenditure and such deduction has to depend upon the facts and circumstances of every case. He relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Fakeerappa and another v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and others [2004 ACJ 699] and Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others [ 2006 ACJ 1058 ] in support of his submission that personal expenditure at lower rate and application of higher multiplier could be justified in peculiar facts of the case. ( 3 ) IT was seen from the impugned award that the Tribunal had disregarded other allowances and minimum wages to which the deceased would have been entitled as also prospect of rise in his income since he was aged only 20 years at the time of accident. Any reasonable assessment of rise in his income in future would necessarily more than offset reduction in the amount of compensation required to be effected on account of application of lower multiplier. The Tribunal had also not awarded any amount towards loss to the estate. Therefore, although there is substance in the argument for the appellant that application of multiplier of 15 was on higher side and it could have been reduced to 13, the overall amount of compensation awarded to the respondent appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also a common place that among the people belonging to lower strata of society with very low income, the earning member of the family cannot afford to spend one-third of his income on himself when other members of the family might be starving. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the deceased appears to have been the only son and bread-winner of the parents who had reached the age of 50 years. Therefore, since it would not be appropriate and just to interfere with the impugned award for reducing the amount of compensation, the appeal is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application for stay stands disposed as rejected in view of disposal of the appeal.