RAFIQ, J.—The total sum that has been awarded in the present case, which is a death claim is Rs.3,03,000. As per the assertion of the claimants, the deceased who died in a road accident was aged 22 years and was doing the job of motor binding and his daily earnings was Rs.200. 2. Shri Rishipal Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has made two fold arguments in assailing the order. His contention is that at the age of 60 years, multiplier of 5 should have been applied and not 8. His second contention is that mere assertion by the mother that deceased was doing the work of motor binding, would not be sufficient to assert that his daily earnings were Rs.200 per day. At the maximum, his earning can be taken at Rs.135, which was then the minimum daily wage for a skilled workman as notified by the Government. 3. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the multiplier for the age group of 56-60 years should be 9. The Tribunal in the present case has relied on the cross examination of the mother of the deceased. In her cross examination, she stated that her marriage took place about 45 years ago whereas in the claim petition her age was itself given as 44 years. The age of other two sons was 20 years and 18 years. The claimant appears to be an illiterate woman. Given the fact that her other sons were aged 20 and 18 years and that deceased was 22 years, the age of the claimant does not appear to be 60 years, yet the Tribunal has assumed her age to be 60 years and therefore applied the multiplier of 8, which in fact it should have applied multiplier of 9. Argument that there is no documentary evidence to show that deceased was working as a motor binding as for such a trade, cannot be accepted because there cannot be any documentary evidence for this. Even if there is any possibility of marginal decrease in the quantum of compensation, but given the fact that it was a young age death and only a sum of Rs.3,03,000 has been awarded, no interference is considered appropriate. The appeal is therefore dismissed.