Devendra Kumar Arora, J.;— Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rejendra Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the claimants/opposite parties. 2. Through the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant challenges the award dated 20.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Case No. 137 of 2000, whereby the claim preferred by the claimants/opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed and awarded the compensation to them to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/- with 10% interest per annum. 3. Learned Counsel for the parties did not dispute the factum of accident as well as initiation of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act but learned Counsel for the appellant has disputed the fact that award passed by the Tribunal was erroneous on two grounds; firstly, deceased Abrar was an employee of the owner of vehicle No. UP-34 C-1497 and the claimants are the parents of the deceased and as such, claimants should have filed claim under Section 167 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, instead of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and secondly, the multiplier, which has been applied by the Tribunal, are not as per the Schedule insofar as at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 22 years and the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased, were 45 years and 40 years, respectively. 4. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the plea of the appellant that claimants should have filed claim under Section 167 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 instead of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has no force in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Chandra Kali and another reported in 2003 (1) T.A.C. 112 (All.), wherein this Court has held that in view of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimant may file the claim either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 but not under both. Therefore, the plea of the appellant in this aspect of the matter is hereby rejected. 5. Therefore, the plea of the appellant in this aspect of the matter is hereby rejected. 5. So far as the plea of the appellant that multiplier, which has been applied by the Tribunal in facts and circumstances of the case, is not correct, appears to have been some force insofar as it is settled law that if a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents, who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided by the 2nd Schedule, then the Court has to offset such high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants and age of the parents was the relevant factor in case of minor's death. That precisely has happened in this case. 6. In the instant case, at the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 22 years and his parents were 45 and 40 years, respectively. Therefore, multiplier applied by the Tribunal at the rate of 15 is erroneous. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, as the multiplier of 15, which has been applied is not in accordance with the Schedule so formulated and as such, considering the age of deceased, which is 22 years, we are of the view that it should be 13. 8. In view of above, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal requires modification and the total amount which the claimant-respondent seem to be entitled comes to Rs. 187200/- (Rs 1200 x 12 months x 13) along with interest at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum. 9. Accordingly, the impguned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimant-respondent shall be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,87,200/- along with interest at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum. The appellants shall deposit the rest of the amount inclusive of statutory deposit, in case already not deposited within a period of two months before the Tribunal. The amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal by the registry forthwith and the Tribunal shall release the same immediately in favour of the claimant-respondent. 10. The appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _