JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No. 3/1997 claiming enhancement of compensation. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Sohan Ali, son of appellants No.1 and 2 and elder brother of claimants No.3 to 5 died in a motor vehicle accident. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was working as a mechanic and was earning Rs.2000/- per month. It has assessed the dependency of the family at Rs.12,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation. 3. Sh.R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the dependency should have been assessed at least at 2/3rd of the income and also submits that the multiplier should have been higher. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, no cogent evidence has been led by the claimants. It is only the bald statement of the father of the deceased that the deceased was working as roadside mechanic and was earning Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. The accident occurred in the year 1996 and keeping in view the daily wage rates prevalent at that time, the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/-per month is just and reasonable. 4. Coming to the question of dependency, the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 has clearly held that where the claimants are the parents and the deceased is a bachelor, normally 50% should be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. In a given case where it is shown that deceased had left minor brother and sisters who were dependent upon him, the dependency of the family can be raised upto 2/3rds. This however, cannot be done in the present case since the father is an able bodied person aged about 54 years. The brothers and sisters are not shown to be minors in the claim petition nor in the proceedings filed in this court. Therefore, they cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. This however, cannot be done in the present case since the father is an able bodied person aged about 54 years. The brothers and sisters are not shown to be minors in the claim petition nor in the proceedings filed in this court. Therefore, they cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the dependency of the family in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case can only be taken at 50% of the income, i.e. Rs.1000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per year. 5. Come to the question of multiplier. In Sarla Verma’s case, the Apex Court formulated a chart showing what multiplier is to be used. It is settled law that multiplier has to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is higher. In this case the main claimant will be the mother and not the father since the father cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased. Keeping in view the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case, multiplier of 13 is applicable to the present case. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,56,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- as conventional damages and Rs.9000/- is awarded to them for funeral expenses. Therefore, they are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. The claimants are also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount. 6. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,30,000/- to 1,75,000/- with interest as aforesaid. The amount is apportioned as follows:- 1. Sh.Gulam Mohammad, father Rs.40,000/- 2. Smt.Karim Bibi, mother Rs.1,35,000/- The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.