JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.- This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against judgment of learned Single Judge rejecting application for modification of award of Lok Adalat by reducing enhanced compensation from Rs.1,43,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. Mukhtiar Singh, husband of Sukhdevi and father of minors respondent Nos. 2 to 5, lost his life in accident which took place on 12.4.1993. He was working as Auditor in the Panchayat department of the State of Haryana. The contesting respondents filed application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, awarded compensation of Rs.3,57,500/-, holding dependency to be Rs.29,784/- per annum and applying multiplier of 12, following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum v. Sushma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176. Age of the deceased was 42. 3. An appeal was preferred by the heirs before this Court which was referred to Lok Adalat and it was agreed that multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Accordingly, enhanced compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- was ordered to be paid without any further interest. 4. The appellant filed an application stating that the Insurance Company was agreeable to multiplier of 13 only and agreed to enhanced compensation of Rs.1 lac but by mistake, it was noted down as Rs.1,43,000/-. The application was rejected by learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Since the appeal raises a disputed question as to what was agreed before the Lok Adalat. Since the Hon’ble Judge who was a member of the Lok Adalat has dealt with the matter on judicial side and rejected the plea of the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere. Moreover, in recent judgment in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Surpeme Court has held that where age of the deceased is 42, multiplier of 14 should be applied. Thus, by applying multiplier of 14 and awarding interest, compensation would work out almost equal to the amount awarded. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. --------------