JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 28th November, 2006 passed by VII Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 46/04. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,78,000/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Smita Verma who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondent No. 2 wherein the quantum is under challenge. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement/ reduction in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts-evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent ? It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 2. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 22nd July, 2003 one Smita Verma aged 21 years died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by legal representatives (appellants herein) out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for her death. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,78,000/-, break-up of which is as under :- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 1,80,000/- Towards loss of love & affection Rs. 12,000/- Towards future prospects Rs. 48,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 13,550/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Towards travelling expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that Smita was the only daughter of the appellants and was prosecuting the studies of MCA and she was in the third year. Her income was assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of tuitions which she was conducting. 2,500/- Towards travelling expenses Rs. 2,000/- 3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that Smita was the only daughter of the appellants and was prosecuting the studies of MCA and she was in the third year. Her income was assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of tuitions which she was conducting. Appellants have adduced the evidence that in her batch there were 31 students including the deceased, out of which 29 completed their education and were placed in jobs and each of them was getting the package of Rs. 3 Lacs per annum and above. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the future prospects the income of deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 3 Lacs per year. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Chandan Singh and Another Vs. S.E.W. Construction Co. Ltd. and Others, (2003) ACJ 1382, wherein deceased was aged 27 years and was prosecuting MBA training and getting the stipened of Rs. 6,000/- per month and completed training of 8 months and was to become Assistant Manager, Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs. 14,39,856/-. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of B. Ramulamma and Others Vs. Venkatesh, Bus Union and Another, (2011) ACJ 1702, wherein deceased was student of B.F. Computers (Final year) and classmates of deceased were earning handsome salary, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that looking to the classmates of the deceased are earning handsome salary and prospects of deceased also getting job could not be doubted. It was further held that income earned by classmates with similar educational and technical qualifications would be relevant and it appears to be rational, just and reasonable to take their income as guiding factor since in all probabilities the deceased would have got similar job. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the 'matter of R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, 2009 AIR SCW 4381 wherein in a case of child death, the Hon. Apex Court held there is no yardstick to measure loss of future prospects of children. However, while considering such claims, child's performance in school, reputation of school etc. might be taken into consideration. However, while considering such claims, child's performance in school, reputation of school etc. might be taken into consideration. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Rajeshwar Saran v. Munna Khan, 2011 AAC 671 (Del.) wherein deceased was aged 23 years-at the time of accident who was survived by her mother and unmarried sisters and deceased was qualified and was pursuing international professional course and simultaneously also earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from part time work of dance and choreographer and the income of deceased was taken as Rs. 12,000/- per month which was enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- and the deduction towards her personal expenses was taken as 2/3rd deducted by Claims Tribunal, Delhi High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 23,70,000/-. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Subodh Kumar v. Mohd. Arif, 2011 A.A.C. 2445 (Del.), wherein deceased was final year student of C.A. and was having offer letters from 2 companies with one of which he was working as an Article Trainee, extending an offer of salary of Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum to him and the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 12,000/- per month, Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency income is taken as Rs. 3 Lacs per annum and, since, age of the mother of the deceased was between 46-47 years, multiplier of 13 was applied and compensation of Rs. 13,65,000/- was awarded. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deo Patodi and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 123 , wherein deceased was aged 22 years and brilliant student and graduated at business Administration from University in Australia, father was aged 51 years and deceased was the only son of claimants and the deceased was doing part time work with World Bank while doing graduation and after graduation a U.S. based concern had offered him employment at annual remuneration of 41,600 dollars which he did not accept, Tribunal assessed the income @ Rs. 8,000/- per month and dependency @ Rs. 6,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 13, awarded a sum of Rs. 9,36,000/- plus Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, appellate Court assessed dependency @ Rs. 12,000/- per month and allowed a sum of Rs. 18,72,000/- plus Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 8,000/- per month and dependency @ Rs. 6,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 13, awarded a sum of Rs. 9,36,000/- plus Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, appellate Court assessed dependency @ Rs. 12,000/- per month and allowed a sum of Rs. 18,72,000/- plus Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 1,25,000 for medical expenses as the deceased survived for 7 days after the accident, the Hon'ble Apex Court assessed the income @ Rs. 25,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 10 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for drawing a fresh award. 4. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel submits that income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 3 Lacs per year. Learned Counsel further submits that since appellant No.2 is paralysed which is proved by the evidence, therefore, appellants were dependent on the deceased. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case deduction of half of the amount towards personal expenses was on higher side which ought to have been taken as 1/3rd. So far as application of multiplier of 5 is concerned, learned Counsel submits that learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier on the ground that deceased was daughter of the appellants whose marriage was to be solemnized shortly. It is submitted that, since, deceased was only daughter of the appellants therefore, application of multiplier of 5 was improper. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Ram Singh and Another Vs. Amrit Lal Devangan and Others, (1998) ACJ 1093, wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that parents are entitled to compensation for the death of their daughter as she would not have left her parents unattended and unprovided for in their old age or in the hour of need. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Bhagwani Sahu Vs. Vijay Kumar Mohanty and Others, (2000) ACJ 1240, wherein Division Bench of this Court held that there can be no discrimination on the ground of gender while awarding compensation for death. Learned Counsel further submits that for the purpose of application of multiplier, the age of the deceased should have been taken into consideration as 21 years. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced. Mr. Learned Counsel further submits that for the purpose of application of multiplier, the age of the deceased should have been taken into consideration as 21 years. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced. Mr. H.C. Jindal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and cross-objection have been filed by respondent No. 2 for reduction of the amount. Learned Counsel submits that deceased was prosecuting her studies and was in third semester while the deceased was required to complete the course of six years, therefore law laid down by Delhi High Court or Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable in the present case. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jashuben and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 162 , wherein in a case of death which took place in the year 1994 and salary was not revised with retrospective effect from 1994, the question whether revision of salary at a later point of time can be a factor to be taken into consideration while determining compensation was replied in negative and it was held that compensation should be determined having regard to the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by reason of death and further prospects should be based on some legal principles. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of D.S. Muralikrishnan and Kavitha Muralikrishnan Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Division-I) Ltd., (2006) ACJ 523, wherein deceased was a girl aged 11 months and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, Appellate Court observed that deceased would have commenced contribution to her family after 18 years and continued till her marriage. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 65 , wherein the deceased was aged 19 years and parents were in the age group of 55-56 years. Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9 and Appellate Court applied the multiplier of 18, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier by taking average of age of parents. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9 and Appellate Court applied the multiplier of 18, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier by taking average of age of parents. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 1 , wherein claimants were parents of the deceased the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "choice of multiplier would depend upon the age of the claimants and not that of the deceased," Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim, 2007 A.C.J. 2816, wherein deceased was a boy aged 7 years who was student of second standard, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 1,52,000/-, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation and the award passed by the Tribunal was maintained." 5. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel submits that learned Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and cross-objections filed by respondent No. 2 be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant be reduced substantially. 6. From perusal of record it is evident that to prove the case, appellant No. 1 has examined herself as AW-1, Ramakant Dubey as AW-2, Jawahar Verma as AW-3 and Dr. B.K. Tripathi as AW-4. In documentary evidence appellants have filed the documents Ext.P/1 to P/17. Ext.P/1 is the marksheet of Middle School wherein the deceased secured 85% marks, Ext.P/2 is the marksheet of High School in which deceased secured 1st Division. Ext.P/4 is the marksheet of Higher Secondary School in which also the percentage of deceased is more than 60%. Ext.P/5 and P/6 are the marksheets of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya for BCA. In these marksheets it is mentioned that it is six years course out of which 3 years for BCA and rest 3 years for MCA. Ext.P/4 is the marksheet of Higher Secondary School in which also the percentage of deceased is more than 60%. Ext.P/5 and P/6 are the marksheets of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya for BCA. In these marksheets it is mentioned that it is six years course out of which 3 years for BCA and rest 3 years for MCA. The marksheets are 4th and 5th semester which shows that deceased was in the half of the way for B.C.A. Ext.P/ 11 is the certificate issued by Medical Officer, Mhow which shows that appellant No. 2 is suffering with partial paralysis. Ext.P/12 is receipt of tuition fees of the year 2001-02 to 2003-04. Rest of the documents are relating to the treatment given to the deceased. Appellants have examined Dr. B.K. Tripathi as AW-4 who has stated that deceased was in the fifth semester. He has further stated that students of the batch of the deceased Smita Verma have already got the Job and average salary of each is Rs. 2,67,000/- per annum. This witness has proved Ext.P/32 to P/34 which is the computer sheet, on the basis of which record was prepared but that was not brought before the learned Tribunal. Ext.P/35 is the order of placement dated 14/6/2006 which shows the salary as Rs. 2,70,530/-, but, in the present case neither the deceased was qualified upto that extent and also the accident is of the year 2003. 7. Appellant No. 2 Shankarlal Verma has not entered into the witness box to prove the fact that he was non earning member of the family because of sickness. Ext.P/11 is the certificate of disability wherein it is stated that appellant No. 2 is suffering from paralysis but there is nothing on record to show that from what date the appellant is suffering from paralysis. The photograph of appellant No. 2 is on record. Even if, it is assumed that appellant No. 2 is suffering from paralysis, then too appellant No. 2 was competent to give evidence. Ext.P/12 and P/13 are the exhibits whereby it is tried to show that deceased was getting the tuition fee from the students but that has not been proved in accordance with law. It is not stated by the appellant No. 1 that entries in the record were being made by whom. 8. Ext.P/12 and P/13 are the exhibits whereby it is tried to show that deceased was getting the tuition fee from the students but that has not been proved in accordance with law. It is not stated by the appellant No. 1 that entries in the record were being made by whom. 8. Keeping in view the age of deceased and also keeping in view the age of parents who are the appellants, this Court is of the view that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal on the ground that deceased was the daughter and was in the age group of 18 years who was to be married shortly, cannot be a ground for choosing the multiplier. It is well settled that there cannot be any discrimination on the ground of gender while awarding compensation and also that a daughter would not have been left her parents unattended in their old age or in the hour of need. In the opinion of this Court multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied instead of 5, keeping in view the age of appellants. So far as income of deceased is concerned, keeping in view the uncertainties of life and also the bright future of deceased, this Court is of the view that income of deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 8,000/- per month and deduction ought to have been made half as deceased was a girl and would have married within 3-4 years. Thus, appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Towards loss of dependency Rs . 5,20,000/- Towards pecuniary losses Rs . 25,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs . 5,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs . 5,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs . 10,000/- Total Rs . 5,65,000/- Thus, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,65,000/- instead of Rs. 2,78,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs.2,87,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 1. In view of this, appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation as stated above and cross objections filed by respondent No. 2 are dismissed. No order as to costs.